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.

For the avoidance of doubt absolutely women SHOULD be educated and free to have children or not have children according to their own preferences.
I think you're doing men a disservice, they are capable of being good partners and fathers, the sticking point is that boys and young men need older men to provide much better role models for them. So the older men need to pull themselves up by their (chauvinistic) bootstraps- which is a big ask I Grant you!

https://www.arup.com/perspectives/what-does-an-age-inclusive-city-look-like

We should look a building for an older population now - many things like fewer trip hazards, more benches., think about urban heat with climate change and perhaps better separation of pedestrian and traffic would be positive for wider population.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/improving-with-age-how-city-design-is-adapting-to-older-populations

Haha yes - I do not advocate for taking away women’s freedom but I also think the population must decrease - we have to find a better way to support the old than a Ponzi scheme.

Men would have to want to do this. I see no indication at scale that they do so I remain dubious.

And again because having a child means giving birth there will be many women with options who are not fussed about doing that.

Men would have to want to do this. I see no indication at scale that they do so I remain dubious
Then we need to structure incentives such that being good and decent is their best option for getting on in life.

My dream? We can keep it static and improve global warming by other means and you know world inequality. With the latter, the population would start decreasing anyway. Pretending that we should all stop having children to solve the problem is silly.

but then humans will suffer. You think the planet is more important than humans? You only care about the planet because you are a human.

Because just as anywhere else in the modern world women want to enjoy their youth , list of Swedish mums are in their 40 or late 30s meaning having multiple children without intervention is harder .

but then humans will suffer. You think the planet is more important than humans? You only care about the planet because you are a human.

Yes, actually, the environment is so important for all of us.

Having fewer children doesn't equate to 'suffering'. Nobody is suggesting a cull except maybe the people complaining about old people being alive and having to look after them

So what if we do this. We return to a time when one salary is enough to comfortably and enjoyably as it used to be in the 70s. Quality of life was prioritised across the country. This could be achieved; if there was the political will to do so. One parent of either sex can remain at home if they want to or each parent works part time thus allowing home to become central again.

This would automatically increase community engagement, investment and time with neighbours Inc the elderly and takes the rush and sting out of everyone’s lives. There would be time to support the frail, time to care properly for our children and less need for expensive childcare. The biggest benefactors would be children followed by the elderly. There would be less children removed into care, less people with mental health problems and we would be a healthier nation. It would encourage family life and would be a form of utopia for many. A balanced and equal society.

But seriously, who is going to look after the old people? We're already struggling to fund pensions and staff care healthcare.

That’s what I’d love to know too. Several people on this thread just keep repeating “fewer humans is a good thing” like some sort of mantra, but it’s not quite clear how we could deal with an aging population.
And no, immigration can’t be the only answer. Immigrants aren’t just there to provide services while young and healthy and than go back to their own country - they might want to settle, have kids, they too will get older one day.
Who is going to look after them?

Because you’ve just decreased the workforce by roughly 30% ( by taking out one worker per family) thus exacerbating the problem that is already being caused by depopulation.

There would be time to support the frail, time to care properly for our children and less need for expensive childcare. The biggest benefactors would be children followed by the elderly. There would be less children removed into care, less people with mental health problems and we would be a healthier nation. It would encourage family life and would be a form of utopia for many. A balanced and equal society

There wouldn't be enough numbers in the workforce though.

But you have no logical understanding about how human life works and the fact we would not survive with only an elderly population. Do you have any idea what’s happening in the care system right now? It’s disgusting. Yes we need a lot of young people to support them and keep life going. If you don’t care about life on earth continuing, kill us all now instead of a long and painful death.

Fewer babies equals fewer elderly people in 70 years time.

I know I’ve said this ten times on this thread but people mustn’t have read it.

Fewer babies equals fewer elderly people in 70 years time.

I know I’ve said this ten times on this thread but people mustn’t have read it.

They've ignored it as it's not particularly relevant to now...

Exactly.

Yes but you do realise that there are 70 whole years between now and 70 years time? Multiple generations. Even if another baby is never born.
I'm not going to engineer a future where my children, and possibly myself, are left to starve in old age.
Are you of an age where that would be a possibility? I suspect not.

Yes. And even fewer young people to look after them. 1000 old people being cared for by 10 young people is the same as 100 old people being cared for by 1 young person.

I think what you haven’t quite considered or factored in as AI. The number of jobs - especially manual jobs are all already radically changing and reducing. We will see this happen any way so we may as well embrace the changes and shape the future ourselves - rather than standing back and not participating.

I also assume AI will be taking over most care work, basic nursing, surgery, cleaning, house work etc very soon. That will solve many of the issues the elderly currently have.

This doesn’t help the next 100 years.

You’re not concerned about AI taking over humanity?

It also doesn’t make sense because to get to that stage we have to smartly get through the next 70 years…

No, not at all. Of course controls will need to be in place but we are a long way away from AI ruling the world; in the meantime I intend to take full advantage of the advancements.