Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

We need to start talking about population decline

792 replies

user4567890754 · 02/06/2023 22:15

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.

The school with one pupil: how falling birthrates are killing village primaries

Four generations of Ruby Booker’s family have been educated at Skelton Newby Hall, an idyllic village primary school in North Yorkshire.It was the autumn of 194

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Famzonhol · 05/06/2023 18:25

hyggeb · 05/06/2023 16:59

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...

Well if everyone only cares about the short term we’ll keep going in circles. A bit like this thread.

GCalltheway · 05/06/2023 18:29

Famzonhol · 05/06/2023 18:25

Well if everyone only cares about the short term we’ll keep going in circles. A bit like this thread.

AI will fix this so let’s continue to reduce the population and save the planet 🌎

SideBob · 05/06/2023 18:31

But you have no logical understanding about how human life works and the fact we would not survive with only an elderly population.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to reply to this, but this won't happen. Having zero children would cause a crash. Having fewer children stabilises the population.

SomethingOnce · 05/06/2023 18:42

Why do people keep mentioning pyramid schemes?

Gradual population decrease to a more sustainable size by way of a fertility rate a shade under replacement is hardly a call for humanity to multiply like algal bloom.

I’ve chosen to have more children over driving, flying, and consuming stuff we don’t need or want.

Family relationships matter, community matters. I’m coming to believe nationhood is important too.

hyggeb · 05/06/2023 19:21

Well if everyone only cares about the short term we’ll keep going in circles. A bit like this thread.

Short term matters as well though...

hyggeb · 05/06/2023 19:25

Are you of an age where that would be a possibility? I suspect not.

Unlikely & that poster also has a dc so it's a bit do I say not as I do.

hyggeb · 05/06/2023 19:27

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

Yeah maybe on the Brexit, housing, NHS, COL threads we should tell them "it's ok, it will be better in 70 yrs time, stop thinking of the short term"! 🙄

Famzonhol · 05/06/2023 20:16

hyggeb · 05/06/2023 19:25

Are you of an age where that would be a possibility? I suspect not.

Unlikely & that poster also has a dc so it's a bit do I say not as I do.

More utter nonsense.

I never said people shouldn’t have children.

If every couple had two children the population would still drop steadily due to some inevitable early deaths.

Famzonhol · 05/06/2023 20:17

hyggeb · 05/06/2023 19:27

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

Yeah maybe on the Brexit, housing, NHS, COL threads we should tell them "it's ok, it will be better in 70 yrs time, stop thinking of the short term"! 🙄

Pretty much, yes.

Luckydip1 · 05/06/2023 21:32

Assuming no net migration and unchanged mortality, a total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman ensures a broadly stable population.

heartofglass23 · 05/06/2023 21:37

I'd quite happily have 5DC if a 6 bed house cost £500 pcm and I had childcare available whenever I wanted for whatever reason.

user4567890754 · 05/06/2023 23:00

Although there are more supports for family life is Sweden, longer leave periods etc, you still usually have both parents working. The possibility of living on one wage with one parent at home with the kids would go further than that. In principal, I do think that would help. In practice, I don’t know how you achieve it.

The documentary maker I linked at the beginning said that he had found 95% of people still want to have children, and if they have one they usually have 2. There were far more women having zero, but most of them had not made a decision to be child free. They had run out of time, while always expecting it would happen one day (Unplanned childlessness he called it).Better education about fertility timescales might help, but I also think there is now a cultural expectation in men and women to date and live together for years and years without thinking about marriage and kids til they’re 30 or so. Then if that relationship breaks down, the woman is ona much tighter timescale to find someone else. He found that if a woman got to 30 without a child there was only a 50% chance she would become a mother, not purely based on fertility but on being able to find a willing and suitable partner at the right time etc.

Personally I’m going to be telling my girls that if they want to be mothers they need to have this in mind when dating in their 20s and not waste time with unsuitable men (as I did)! Especially now I know about the declining sperm quality.

OP posts:
user4567890754 · 06/06/2023 00:05

TripleDaisySummer · 05/06/2023 13:42

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

Ah this is really interesting, thank you! Interesting that they are predicting greater urbanisation along with aging - perhaps alleviating some concerns about cities spreading and taking over green land.

I love the idea of the multigenerational residential areas with walkable facilities for both older people and young families like daycare centres etc. Maybe we could think about community kindergartens where healthy retired people could be involved in the staffing and running of them.

OP posts:
user4567890754 · 06/06/2023 00:17

And I don’t think elderly people are a burden either. I think healthy retired people benefit from still being active in some way in the community. Retiring at 55 and sitting around reading the newspaper or going on cruises for 30 years doesn’t sound particularly fulfilling or appealing.

And I do think that most do go on to serve the community in other non profit making ways like volunteering and caring for grandkids and friends.

I don’t think that anyone is a burden. Everyone has something to offer. Caring for someone who is unable to do so, whether they are a child, an elderly person or someone with lifelong disabilities is a responsibility and when we take on responsibilities voluntarily and serve others, this bring meaning, purpose and joy to our own lives too.

OP posts:
user4567890754 · 06/06/2023 00:23

Famzonhol · 05/06/2023 16:54

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.

Yes, but if the birth rate stays below replacement levels there are going to be fewer and fewer young people in 70 years as well. So the population structure is going to remain relatively top heavy compared to today.

OP posts:
user4567890754 · 06/06/2023 00:43

Famzonhol · 05/06/2023 20:16

More utter nonsense.

I never said people shouldn’t have children.

If every couple had two children the population would still drop steadily due to some inevitable early deaths.

But you do acknowledge that right now each couple is having 1.6 DC, not 2?

I wonder if we need a new description for this mindset along with the “who cares if we die out?” crew. Demographic change deniers?

I guess the psychological appeal of that position is that you get to throw your hands up and say “who cares. It’s a good thing ”, which then absolves you from any responsibility to make awkward changes in your own life or to have to come up with ideas that might solve difficult problems. If you deny that a problem exists then you can just continue to do ad you please. (…. For now….)

OP posts:
RobertaFirmino · 06/06/2023 00:44

Why does the planet even need humans anyway? It's not like we serve any purpose in the great scheme of things. Orangutans serve more purpose than we do, they eat plants and crap out the seeds, perpetuating the forest. Same goes for plenty of other species. Us humans might be the most advanced species but we really are unnecessary.

Emptycrackedcup · 06/06/2023 01:53

user4567890754 · 06/06/2023 00:17

And I don’t think elderly people are a burden either. I think healthy retired people benefit from still being active in some way in the community. Retiring at 55 and sitting around reading the newspaper or going on cruises for 30 years doesn’t sound particularly fulfilling or appealing.

And I do think that most do go on to serve the community in other non profit making ways like volunteering and caring for grandkids and friends.

I don’t think that anyone is a burden. Everyone has something to offer. Caring for someone who is unable to do so, whether they are a child, an elderly person or someone with lifelong disabilities is a responsibility and when we take on responsibilities voluntarily and serve others, this bring meaning, purpose and joy to our own lives too.

Lovely sentiment, but I think this is quite delusional. There are sadly many people who don't contribute anything to society, in fact some take more than they contribute and some male it worse. Crime levels are getting higher and higher where I live. Unfortunately I agree with PP, I'm not sure humans add anything positive to earth.

illiterato · 06/06/2023 05:35

GCalltheway · 05/06/2023 18:01

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.

I agree but then I don’t see the need for rejigging society to encourage people to have more children. The big argument for combatting depopulation is that we need a workforce to support old people. One of the big arguments for ignoring depopulation is that it doesn’t matter because AI will pick up all this stuff so we won’t need a huge workforce.

Pinesinthedunes · 06/06/2023 05:44

AI won't be doing the caring. Too expensive. Euthanasia will be widely encouraged.

sanityisamyth · 06/06/2023 06:40

RedRiverSun · 02/06/2023 22:35

This is a GOOD thing. There is no more destructive species on the planet. We need a sustainable population.

This. 100% this.

Scalottia · 06/06/2023 06:51

RobertaFirmino · 06/06/2023 00:44

Why does the planet even need humans anyway? It's not like we serve any purpose in the great scheme of things. Orangutans serve more purpose than we do, they eat plants and crap out the seeds, perpetuating the forest. Same goes for plenty of other species. Us humans might be the most advanced species but we really are unnecessary.

I agree. Tell me why humans are necessary?

None of you are having children to help populate the planet. None of you. You are having them for only one reason - because you want to. Humans are uneccessary, that includes you, and your children, me, all of us.

It doesn't really matter if the species dies out in 70 years, 100 years, 200 years.

If the people here with kids are so concerned about all of this, why did you have them?

The planet doesn't need more humans.

Tenacioustattle · 06/06/2023 06:57

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

CoalCraft · 06/06/2023 07:36

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

My thoughts exactly. I care far more about people than some nebulous concept called "the planet", which in reality is little more than a ball of rock with some interesting chemistry on it. Who are we meant to be preserving it for, if not for people?

GCalltheway · 06/06/2023 07:44

Quite frankly I would much rather provide a healthy sustainable planet that is bearable for my children than over populate to ‘support’ the wealthy boomers and sink our children’s future. Some people are so selfish!

They have had a great life - booming property prices and endless pension pots where is the sense of social responsibility to the young and to our incredible planet that supports us all to live?

As long as there is someone to do their bidding and wipe their arse they actually couldn’t care less the legacy they are leaving behind. It’s disgusting.