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?

So care about nothing because one day it will all end?
Nah, I'll keep caring in the interim thanks. Otherwise what is the point.

You will die, you are alone
There is no God upon his throne
Impose thy will upon Earth's mess
Else your life is meaningless
No hell below, no heaven above
Life life now and act with love

Recipe for Humanity
Grayson Perry

I find this couple's viewpoint interesting- they've definitely thought stuff through, even though I don't agree with them. Regarding the hitting a child across the face in front of someone- Well, I'm autistic and I, too, treat my DC exactly the same way in front of people as I do at home, I'm not a hypocrite (but I don't hit them).

Declining population is a positive thing in the long run- we just need to face up to it and manage it so it doesn't cause individual suffering. Societies should devote more of their budgets to caring for the ageing- if they can find money to fight wars, they can find it to look after the elderly. Immigration will be helpful in the medium term, and in the long term a smaller human population will be great for both us and the planet.

It’s obvious why most people care- they feel that their family- children, grandchildren or great grandchildren are threatened. Humans generally care about their progeny- they can conceive of a time far enough into the future that things could be difficult (because of climate change), for people they love and feel a connection to

They are not threatened though? Climate change is happening but it can ofc be managed through better infrastructure.

Tbh there has never been a better time to be a human being, like, ever. Do you think Britain was better in the 70s? (I wouldn’t know, my country was a total impoverished shithole at that time, pretty much everyone is better off today).

It seems like you lament all the things we’ve done on Earth, to make human beings survive and now thrive.

If the alternative is a planet untouched by humans that will just die off in another billions years due to the sun’s natural star cycle … then who cares?

I think we’d be better off making it financially easier for more couples to have 1 or 2 kids than having a bunch of weirdos have 10 each…

I thought we needed to reduce the population because of climate change and everyone's climate footprint. Either we do or we don't, which is it? Surely a world with less people in it would be better for all sorts of reasons, including how much humans impact the environment and the only reason people are pro-natalism is because some rich and powerful people need more cheap labour to exploit and Government have acted incredibly short-termist by giving all the money and wealth to the older generation to get votes so that no other generation can afford to buy a house, let alone have kids. Now they find there is a crisis in terms of elderly care and pension funding so need to bring in more people to look after them which just causes even more issues in terms of pressures on an already creating infrastructure and social cohesion.

Also what happens with the already massive excess amount of people when technology/AI takes over and there are no jobs for all these surplus people? The only people who benefit from pro-natalism seem to be the rich and powerful with a vested interest.

apparently the Beaker people modified Stonehenge but did not build it...also the integration of the Neolithic and Beaker peoples was not a violent event. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/february/ancient-burials-stonehenge-cultures-merged-in-bronze-age.html

Hang on, I thought the Beaker people were late Neolithic rather than early Bronze age??

integration of the Neolithic and Beaker peoples was not a violent event

It is very hard to imagine how 100% of the male DNA was replaced by the newcomers. They don’t have a good explanation, I assumed violence, so maybe a bit of a leap I admit. Could have been plague (but doesn’t account for the gender discrepancy)

Totally agree with this, we are living in time poverty.

The order goes from Western Hunter Gatherer (eg Cheddar Man) who were gradually (and iirc somewhat violently) displaced by Anatolian farmers, the Neolithic megalith builders. They in turn are replaced by the Bell Beakers in the Bronze Age

Societies should devote more of their budgets to caring for the ageing- if they can find money to fight wars, they can find it to look after the elderly.

But that's exactly the issue - how can societies with shrinking working populations pay more and more for the increasing percentages of elderly?
It's all very well to say "we just need to fund x/y properly", but where will the money come from?
Fwiw, I find the couple in OP's article quite odd and I don't think an ever increasing population is the answer, but a rapid birthrate decline creates its own issues.

Strongly suspect the hunter gatherers were rounded up and used as slaves to drag the stones to Stonehenge - many dying on route.

Weird neolithic event means there's now less dairy intolerance in white British than elsewhere would have favoured bell beakers who were herders. However some similarities between uk Celtic and Semitic languages could suggest some crossover. Stonehenge builders were from middle east.

The pro natalists were musk supporters thinking we will be able to colonise the stars so planetary limitations aren't of concern

Yes but it is argued that we have stalled natural evolution, certainly within our own species (modern medicine) and within the species that we use as food for example. Our actions have evolved some species for our own benefit but not for those animals…

It's more about their overall philosophy about being positive about wanting to parent more than 2.4 DCs.

Weren't the iPads and the neighbours doing the heavy lifting parenting?

Evolution is just that though. Evolution. We have evolved brains complex enough for us to do whatever it takes to continue our survival as a species. Just as other species evolve in order to survive. In our case, that means we have developed brains big enough to invent medicines. We may be too clever for our own good and kill ourselves off with antibiotic resistance, and climate change and man made viruses, but that is also evolution.

People in other countries are threatened by rising sea levels, fires, floods, food scarcity etc. Yes Britain isn’t at the coal face in some ways, but Britain isn’t the world.

They are not threatened though? Climate change is happening but it can ofc be managed through better infrastructure…

You can’t have it both ways- if CC can be managed through better infrastructure so that people in the next few generations aren’t threatened… then caring about it NOW is going to be necessary.

Exactly. We are animals- we evolved and are evolving. If the end of that journey is we accidentally kill ourselves off that is still the conclusion of our evolutionary process.

We have influenced the evolution of other animals- but that is also normal, just like lions existence has influenced the evolution of gazelles.

People in other countries are threatened by rising sea levels, fires, floods, food scarcity

Food scarcity is not as common as it was just a few decades ago. Death by the climate has dropped hugely, this despite the massive rise in population. Check Worldometer for climate deaths by year if you don’t believe me.

You can’t have it both ways- if CC can be managed through better infrastructure so that people in the next few generations aren’t threatened… then caring about it NOW is going to be necessary

We can build better infrastructure now to prepare for CC indeed we already have — see Bangladesh success in lowering cyclone deaths.

We can build better infrastructure now to prepare for CC indeed we already have — see Bangladesh success in lowering cyclone deaths.

Indeed- so you see that your earlier argument that is doesn’t make sense to be ‘precious’ (your word not mine) about the planet/climate change now- but not concerned that there will eventually be a mass extinction event that will end humans- is incorrect.

People being ‘precious’ about it now has improved things for people in Bangladesh NOW.

Indeed- so you see that your earlier argument that is doesn’t make sense to be ‘precious’ (your word not mine) about the planet/climate change now- but not concerned that there will eventually be a mass extinction event that will end humans- is incorrect

I am not the anti-human one. I advocate for human thriving. It is those who say that the planet would be ‘better off’ without us that I say those words. Why are they so precious about a planet that is destined to be swallowed up by the sun in four billion years anyway (and devoid of life by about one billion years from now)

I didn’t say you were anti human.

Good.

The overpopulation of this planet by humans is borderline unsustainable.

You're preaching to the converted here ( and in most of the world) You need to go to sub saharan Africa and tell women with little access to contraception or any benefits to financially support them or with any elder social care to stop having so many babies. They are the only ones doing it.

I think I was clear that I didn't endorse their lifestyle/parenting style.

I am pro the continuation of humanity.

I don't want extinction.

It's one of the reasons I had DCs myself.

I talked to my teen about this.

They said most teens don't want DCs as they don't see how they will afford them, don't want the impact on their careers/ finances/ freedom.

I think we have a societal duty to make parenting as easy as possible so every woman can have the number of DCs she wants (most don't).

We can have more ethical lifestyles that don't do as much damage to the environment even with large families eg not flying, not driving, not eating meat.

The dependency ratio problem isn't just about paying care home fees. That's a fraction of the taxpayer cost of old age. Most NHS spending is on the elderly. Most council social care. Most of the benefits bill is on pensions.

If we don't increase the birth rate or immigration we will need drastic policies other countries already have such as fees for GP/ambulance/A&E, care home fees being means tested on the adult children, no non means tested state pension, lower public sector pensions, no long term social housing, capital gains tax on own home etc.

I don't want any of this!!

I agree. There are many women in the world who have no ability to limit the size of their families, either because they have no access to contraception, or are prevented from using it for religious or cultural reasons. Sad really, as the lack of contraception has also enabled the uncontrolled spread of AIDS.