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.

My children were born 20 years plus ago, it wasn’t an issue then. Since then immigration has exploded

Climate change certainly was an issue though as I've been out of school 20 years but learnt about it then...

" I factor accidents into anything child related, so we always have spare outfit, first aid kit and healthy snacks in the car. That covers most things! I look after myself well so I don’t feel fried and frazzled."

"given You posted this a couple of days ago… they’re rather young 20 year olds!@

Lol!

What on earth is wrong with this post?!

Sorry, I’m another person who misunderstood your reply!

Population numbers aren't the issue - the average age of the UK is.

If we had 50 million people in the UK at the median age of 28 then it's better than having 75 million at the median age of 45.

Which is why the 2 cap benefit came in because of all the piss takers but then that discourages hard working families from having more children.

What hard line? People can have children if they choose to, and can afford them - my pov is that they don’t need encouragement.

We have nearly 100,000 children in care for heavens sake. Perhaps we should be taking proper care of the babies, children and families that are already here.

And how many have you adopted?

And how many have you adopted?

Not everyone is allowed to adopt, although they might like to. In some ways it's unfortunate but also for the best that the tests are rigorous

There are plenty of people in the world.

Rather than encourage more women to have babies when it might not be right for them, why not take better care of our children stuck in the system, or encourage immigration?

No?

Thought not.

There are far too many people in the world. The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime. There are more people alive today than there are dead.

@Florenz I'm shocked. I actually agree with you on something.

The dead have outnumbered the living on earth for far longer than people think, though.

That last sentence is utter bollocks.
Get an envelope and a pencil.

But then the immigrants go on to have children and get old

Exactly and they are more likely to have lots of children, but apparently that is ok if they are immigrants 🤷🏻‍♀️

Yes I know

This has been the problem and it's totally unfair

This sounds like you have absolutely no idea how the care system works. Children are not removed and immediately adopted! There is a whole process in between called foster care. Given my work, I am already doing an enormous amount to support them.

We have many hundreds of thousands of children that require a much better chance in life, many of those much loved but in a poverty trap. Before we even think of bringing yet more wee souls into the world, maybe we should be doing a far better job of caring for the babies and children here already.

No, you are not getting it! I feel like I am repeating myself but I will try to explain again:

The world population will increase for the next few years. There is nothing we can do about that. It’s due to a “fill up of adults” in older age groups, not because people are having more children than before.

in fact, people everywhere are having fewer and fewer children.

The UK population will decline from 2025. This will bring challenges that will have to addressed in some way. Either by bringing in more people from abroad, or by something else. I would like to discuss what the something else might be, because immigration is not a long term solution. Politicians are not being honest with voters because they are making claims about being able to cut immigration without discussing how else they might tackle the issues of demographic change. There seems to be little awareness or planning. Look at Japan or Italy to see what the challenges might be of a declining population with low immigration.

The world population will also peak and start to decline, some time after 2050, repeating these issues across every country. I worry that in some countries the something else the governments might go for would be to restrict abortion or euthanise the elderly and disabled.

All the more reason for the UK and other western countries who will get there first to start thinking about how they can model a better something else.

So the short term issue is an aging population and social and economic problems with a declining population, empty housing, not enough people to staff businesses, teach, staff hospitals, staff the army etc etc.

My view is that we might want to look at why people who want children in the UK are not having them, because if the birth rate improved slightly then we could have a slower decline and make the necessary adaptations to new the societal structure. A slower decline of population. Not an increase in population.

The long term issue with the birth rates is that if they fall below replacement rate worldwide and never recover, humans will not just decline really rapidly but also die out completely. So we do need to think one day about getting rates back to about 2. Not to increase the population at all. To stop the decline and have a stable population (which will be less than today) that the earth can support and that is neither increasing nor decreasing.

A birth rate of anything up to and including 2 does not lead to any increase in human population. That’s a good thing. Humans needed to stop increasing.

When people express the desire to get a dog or a cat, the response is usually 'Adopt one who needs a home, there's far too many'. We slate unscrupulous breeders, those who produce animals who will be born with health issues and those who get a pet when they clearly cannot take care of it.
It's a different story when it comes to human beings though. The production of people never seems to be given as much consideration. Even when a dog/cat is in too much pain, we put them out of their misery! Yet more complex and intelligent beings are borne, and allowed to remain, in suffering all the time.

You have misunderstood me completely.

I was responding to posters who said elderly people are a burden and should be euthanised.

I disagree with that entirely. I object to the valuing of a human life in terms of what they give or take financially. This is sensitive for me as there is someone in my family who has a disability and will never be able to care for themselves or get a job. Their life still has meaning and value .

I was saying that caring for elderly people (or disabled , or young) is a responsibility, not a burden, that brings joy and purpose to the person who voluntarily agrees to care for them.

Of course there are many others ways of taking responsibility and bringing meaning and purpose to your life in all types of paid and unpaid roles, teacher , doctor, hairdresser, postman, rubbish collector, painter, supermarket worker. They’re all essential ways to be of service to the community. Even just being kind to strangers, smiling, holding doors open for people. It doesn’t have to be anything to do with children.

I don’t think anyone said that unless I am mistaken. It’s a horrific suggestion.

In terms of 'what we do with the very elderly needing care' I think the solution for ed on us will be multi generational households.

We are already seeing a move to this trend.

Working families moving into the old family homes that have one elderly person is a big house bought before the boom that the younger generations can now never afford.

If the very elderly are living with relatives they can remain in the community and not requiring professional or residential care for many more years.

All care isnt intimate care. Some is just having people around. Someone to get shopping, open mail, do life admin, keep company, collect and give prescriptions, drive to appointments, know if they've had a fall, home and garden maintenance, general household cleaning.

If we move to this model of living we won't have a care crisis.

That would only ever work if the relationship is rock solid.

We will be forced to go back to the old model, grandparents living with their children, we will have no choice financially. It costs £1,000 per week for a live in carer, not many people can afford that.