We need to start talking about population decline

[user4567890754]

The first signs of it are starting to show in the UK, with primary school closures. Secondary school closures will follow.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/11158f12-0133-11ee-a364-04e704863f75?shareToken=5ef47b2b4776be376153089146c8bacf

Italy is a few years ahead of us.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/plunging-birthrate-threatens-italian-schools

Japan shows where every country is headed - towards a crisis where they are on the brink of being unable to maintain social functions.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/13/asia/japan-population-decline-record-drop-intl-hnk/index.html

And yet there are still people who think that we have a problem with overpopulation. It’s the opposite.

Why not? It is a valid question.

I’d like to think we wouldn’t write off those 7 children at birth. They will face more challenges than wealthier children, but what could we do to mitigate those challenges and allow them to fulfil their potential?

Lots of support with early parenting. Perhaps the Princess of Wales will be able to do some good work in this area. Provision of excellent early preschool education . Excellent teaching by well-paid and supported teachers in appropriate buildings with good resources. Good medical care and advice. Access to fulfilling and healthy outdoor sports and hobbies. Access to nutritious food.

This is part of what I’m saying about becoming more community-minded. Those children are our future and it benefits the whole community in the end that if the single mother is struggling, we can support the children to fulfil their potential.

And what has that mother been through to get where she is? DV, or abuse, poor parenting herself, FAS, disrupted education, abandoned by the kids father? What can we do to help her? She has value as a person too and has gifts to offer.

The birth rate will resume naturally if people have well paid secure jobs, and comfortable homes to live in. Quite frankly if you need two full time jobs to just stay afloat the idea of having any further dependents is probably very unappealing

I think this is really true @GCalltheway . The cost of everything, but particularly housing and the trap we are in with two wages often being necessary doubtless has a lot to do with it. Couples delay and delay and maybe come to the conclusion that they just can’t afford DC. Also I know myself that the stress and exhaustion of working 5 days a week or more, long hours, nose to the grindstone has an impact on fertility even if you are TTC.

But in Sweden, where there is a huge amount of financial and social support around families, the average woman still only has 1.7 children. Most women don’t want huge numbers of children even if they can afford them. Very few people want more than three. Plus it’s become much less socially expected of women to have children at all, so the number of women who don’t have any has increased.

So much more thinking do you really think countries full of only elderly people is a good thing? Oh but that’s fine as apparently that is going to save the planet.

Would you prefer to keep growing the population, how does it look over time?

There needs to be planning for how best to manage the large elderly population without a population pyramid. It's too long term though and I think politicians are just going to keep putting their heads in the sand.

In 2016 the government was warned about the liklihood of a large scale, respiratory pandemic within the following decade and told they were not prepared.

They did bugger all about it and that was for something that had a good chance of happening during their tenancy. They simply hoped it wouldn't.

There is no way they are going to get round to doing something about a threat that definately isn't going to happen until someone else in in power.

Correct. Less people will save the planet. More people solves precisely nothing.

To get a uk replacement rate of 2.1 we need half of women to have 3 DCs and 30% to have 2DCs. This is because it's been consistent historically (pre contraception etc) for 20% of women to never have DCs.

The jump from 2 to 3 is so big we need to make that step easier to not have the chaos of a bulge of elderly people and a shrinking working population.

It's not about never ending growth but about going back to c 50 million in the uk and keeping that steady.

Housing and childcare are the big disincentives atm.

Those are fixable by better social policies.

Push our elected representatives for the changes we need!

What exactly are you defining as elderly?

Retirement age 65-68+

Population reduction is why LGBTQ (and all the other letters/symbols) is being pushed so hard - Have a generation sterilize themselves!

That's a huge number of people to generalise about and very ageist. Most 65 year olds will have many healthy years ahead of them and do a lot of the care for family and friends.

Really?

Decline= good.

It's a natural consequence of the agenda

Housing and childcare are the big disincentives atm

If this is true, why is Sweden at 1.7?

The thing is there will nearly always be a tangible financial benefit to a (UK) family of having fewer children. Only the Uber rich are not financially affected by one more child. For nearly everyone else, 2 children vs 3 children is likely to lead to higher discretionary income, which is something most people want- holidays, days out, nicer house etc.

Educated women. Remove education for women and you’d get a higher population.

I think PPs point is not that a large percentage of 65-68 year olds within a population is a bad thing as such (whether it is or it isn’t is a different topic), but that an aging population is a problem.
You might not define 65-68 year olds as “elderly”, but the point is they’re getting older and if there aren’t enough younger/ working age people to look after them as they age, then that’s a problem. Nothing ageist about it.

Alternatively, educate men so that they can be decent good fathers and partners.
If we had men who stepped up and did their fair share rather than always prioritising their own interests and their own earning potential women might be more willing to have children with them☝️😁

It's completely ageist to write people aged 65+ as elderly. Their contribution in terms of caring for relatives, volunteering and through employment is enormous. Living longer, healthier lives should be celebrated. I for one am very glad to have my parents around in their 70s. They're amazing and not a burden in the least.

I sadly don’t see that ever happening. It would help for the women who want kids for sure but there are women who just don’t want kids. With education and freedom these women get to remain child free.

I disagree. Retirement age is the beginning of old age! It’s not ageist, is fact, you can see the uptick of health problems set in at this age and upwards. You may not like it, and you may be very active but it doesn’t change biology

Again, nobody’s disputing their contributions. But as they get older they will most likely need more and help. That’s not a criticism either, just reality.
And if there aren’t enough working age people around to look after them it will become a problem.
If you google elderly + what age you get different results, including people who are 65+. Personally I know people in their 70s who are fit and active and who I wouldn’t regard as ‘elderly’. But that’s not the point here.
Fwiw, I definitely don’t regard older/ elderly people as a burden.