To think pronatalists are on to something?

[Carebearsonmybed]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/25/american-pronatalists-malcolm-and-simone-collins?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

I don't agree with everything this couple say or do but I do think we are approaching a demographic timebomb when the global human population starts to drop in 50 years time.

Most women probably expect to have more DCs at 20 than they end up having by 45. What can we do to get the UK birth rate to replacement rate of c 2.5 so we don't have a crisis of elderly people without enough workers to pay for or provide care and subsidence?

😂😂😂

Nothing, it’s a numbers thing

jf we have lots of elderly people and not enough young people to pay taxes to support them, so we bring in 2M immigrants, then they don’t have children (which is what happens), then we need to bring in even MORE, to look after those immigrants in their old age as well as everyone else. It’s a Ponzi scheme. The only way it works is if we don’t allow immigrants to grow old here, which I don’t agree with

They don't even seem to like their kids, and she is self-harming through repeated pregnancies/c-sections (reads to me like she's replaced anorexia by punishing herself with these repeat pregnancies, the cold house, other deprivations)

I don't think we do need a population at the level it is. I think we could do with a fair bit of population reduction (and I don't think pensions is enough of a reason to have kids!).

I found this article extremely disturbing (re the child abuse and evident damage of the parents) and glad the journo drew the obvious link with the far right and great replacement theory.

I agree too.

World population may be dropping but the problem is increased living standards. 3 or 4 decades ago most of the world did not have cars, electricity, phones, running water, holidays, meat to eat, new clothes, consumer goods, wastefulness. It was only a privileged few in the developed world. Now living standards are rising rapidly in Asia particularly and surely everywhere else will follow.

The planet can't support 8 billion who all want a modern Western lifestyle.

It's an interesting one. I agree humans have in many ways been terrible for the planet but human culture is unique. Would it be a tragedy if there was no-one left to perform or listen to music? To perform plays and write books? We really are remarkable animals. I hope humans achieve a better balance with nature and the population eventually settles in a more steady state.

Gosh, what a lovely post this is 😊

I would love to see this become a reality and maybe I’m completely wrong in my thinking. I just don’t see it unfortunately - for every wonderful thing about humanity (and I do see wonderful things, as well as the horror we create and inflict) I feel there is just too much selfishness and greed for harmony to exist.

But I will continue to hope, alongside you.

oh I just found this.....apparently we haven't appropriated Stonehenge and we still carry some neolithic genes....also the "Beaker takeover" seems to have been a good thing

I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but they were largely replaced. Most people in the UK think Stonehenge was built by their ancestors but … it wasn’t.

My hot take on this topic is that any ideological approach to child bearing, whether it is encouraging or discouraging reproduction in all or some people, always ends up skating on the edge of fascism, eugenics and overall insanity- and therefore we should steer clear of it and mind our own businesses.

Whatever we end up doing, the human species WILL eventually be extinct, just like any other animal species that's ever existed on planet Earth (although of course at the moment our species is very enthusiastic about rushing its own demise). In the meantime, we should just try not to be assholes to each other, and telling other people what to do with their own bodies is definitely asshole behaviour.

The planet can't support 8 billion who all want a modern Western lifestyle

People like Paul Erlich said we wouldn’t be able to feed the world in the 1970s … he was wrong. Chemical fertilisers ensured human thriving by making farming much more productive than ever before. Also … less land was used for agriculture activities at the same time. Truly an under appreciated breakthrough

Where we live fulltime childcare is about £130 for the first child, £84ish a month for the second child. Parental leave is generous. The birth rate is still low because a lot of people do not want children. Lets face it it is still very very recently in human history where a woman not having children has been a choice.

If the issue was 90% finances then countries like Sweden would have a higher birth rate, here its 1.6, where as the UK is 1.5.

I saw this article and started a thread but I'm glad I found this one.

I'm with the posters who smell eugenics and fascism to be frank.

This article certainly didn't endorse the ideology or how this couple are rearing their offspring, thank goodness, and alongside a shift in current thinking to "survival of the fittest - now what do we do with the rest?" I think it's important to know about what the "corporate elite" are thinking. Corporations, especially tech outfits, have more influence and power than we fully realise I think, especially in the US. Where that might lead in terms of framing future policy in government is very interesting to consider.

In terms of environment, like every other evolved species, we're supposed to live in symbiosis with the planet. Unfortunately economic regimes, especially capitalism, have eradicated that to a huge degree in the developed / industrialised world.

I'm most uneasy about the slow creep of ideologies being re-branded and marketed as pragmatism in the face if economic challenges. Especially when you consider humans invented the markets rigs the markets, and in essence it's all a bit of a game. We have the ability to improve things but some of those who could apparently don't have the will..... I wonder if getting richer and richer is like a gambling addiction neurological? It might explain the way some people seem to be driven by money for money's sake?

But I digress. Ultimately this article gave me a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach.

At some point the population needs to reduce and then plateau out. No way could it keep increasing at the rate it has since the 2nd World War.
Humans are a long way from becoming extinct.

Titan Invictus and Industry -poor girls.
Their names sound like Apprentice teams

This was totally my view on reading the article this morning. If these people are being positioned as the poster children for pronatalists then I don’t think we have anything to worry about in terms of it growing in popularity.

We should however worry about their children.

But we only have to get through the next 10-20 years and we will see a demographic shift as the boomer generation is no more (I say this as someone with loved boomer parents).
We will then have a permanently smaller population, needing fewer people to service it.
Or am I wrong?

in the next 10-20 years there will be a reduced population but the issue will be the ratio of old to young.

I'm relieved that most of us find this distasteful. But then again, I've begun to notice how malleable society is.

They both sound a bit unhinged, not fun and not great parents. And I don’t really buy this “demographic time bomb” thing either.

I have to say though that I prefer them to the trad wife and Jesus Take The Wheel wing of pronatalism. They do at least see a role for women in society other than as obedient breeding mares.

I mean they are a pair of fruit loops but they are correct about the political and value shifts with declining birth rates - i.e the future will probably skew back to being more religious than atheistic/liberal given who will be having. This is as big a problem as it relates to your own world view I suppose, I'm fairly neutral.

The other interesting point is that birth rates aren't shifted by cash incentives - the decline in birth rates seems more culturally driven which I think is the most interesting aspect. Seems a mix of people not being able to form long term relationships (I think there's a stat saying that the majority of women who are child free did not want to be but we're unable to find a partner to have kids with) and parenting being viewed as...low value I guess? I do think we talk about parenting in a weird way and parent way too intensively - makes it look much more unappealing than it needs to be.

well but if some of us still carry neolithic genes then.....it was.

Having read the article, I think they’re a couple of Great Replacement Theory eugenicists and child abusers. There may be an argument for having more children but these two aren’t it.

well but if some of us still carry neolithic genes then.....it was

I think you fail to appreciate how devastating it was. No male lineages survive, it must have been extremely violent. Yet it is completely forgotten and modern British look at those megaliths thinking their ancestors built it …. their ancestors killed the people who did (probably)