Concerned about depopulation

[Shawlshare]

AIBU to think the threat of depopulation is being massively underestimated in the UK?

I am early 50s, 3 kids and have lots of friends, young professionals in their 30s involved in the same hobby as me and nobody is having kids. Nobody wants them. People can’t afford accommodation big enough for kids, cannot afford childcare and find day to day life trying to stay ahead of the cost of living crisis tiring enough. They want to spend the weekend doing what they want to do, which is fair enough, but the UK will rapidly become extinct if this goes on for long.

South Korea is likely to become extinct as a country within 4 generations do to similar issues. I can see the UK going the same way. It’s scary and sad. I can’t see it reversing though as any hint of free childcare / flexible working etc etc is politically unpopular with so many. Anyone else concerned? What’s the solution?

I think the economic adjustment would have to be profound - scrapping state pensions, huge reductions to public spending and perhaps re-imaging the role of the state generally.

Bearing in mind that the public wouldn't even tolerate the winter fuel allowance being means-tested, and that older people would have to give up the most, it just doesn't seem realistic.

It’s not just about the west. All countries need to keep their population at a level their resources can sustain. Endless growth is an economists’ fantasy.

As countries develop and become richer, their birthrates have tended to go down because women have more options. So that’s good for the planet.

In countries where women have low status, they tend to be poor, with no chance of education, and have more children. In poor countries where many babies and children die, having more children increases the chance that some may survive. That may work in the short term, and for individuals. But in the longer term the pressure of overpopulation on resources is likely to become unsustainable.

Edited to add: I meant to quote
vinavine · Today 18:49
LeftieRightsHoarder, why won't people be fighting over natural resources just because the West has a smaller but ageing population? Developing younger countries will start to see their economies grow further, become more powerful and will want their share. Isn't India predicted to be the 2nd richest economy in 20 years?

I agree the trend may go up, but I don’t think the reasons you outlined are what’s behind it. COL and finding a partner later in life are secondary to simply wanting to preserve the freedom and comfort of a child-free lifestyle.

I think the idea that there are millions of couples desperate for children / more children but can’t afford them and that it’s this great big tragedy that needs addressing by ‘society’, is completely fanciful. People have the choice to have no/fewer children now compared to historically and they’re simply exercising that choice.

@LeftieRightsHoarder I'm not sure why you have quoted my post but not answered my question?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp81ynn7r4mo#:~:text=But%20the%20picture%20of%20who,in%20particular%20lower%20income%20men.

Interesting article suggesting that poorer men are the less likely to have dc even if they want them.

That's just what DD 33 says. DS 29 became a father for the first time last year, but DD is adamant she doesn't any children. I respect both their opinions.

It didn't really grow in the 70s and 80s. Since Blair turned up we've let half the third world in. The Boris Wave just accelerated it.

@vinavineI think we need global de-population to get some stability as we’re out doing resources. I mean not getting rid of humans or anything but letting natural reduction take the world population down over next few generations. I get the earlier point about some countries still growing and it should really be a global thing.

For resource reasons, but also workforce reasons. We need tax from AI / mechanisation more than the dc born today.

Resources and big reduction in jobs are two main reasons I’d go for de-population.

It is tricky though politically. But without it there just might be other less natural or wanted ways of reduction. Fighting or more pandemics etc

But my question is why will depopulation lead to less need for natural resources? As I said countries are in different stages and will have different needs, a child in Africa will have a smaller carbon footprint than an adult in the west. Who is entitled to use more of the world's resources? why won't there be conflict @EasternStandard?

And what about the interim period?

Thinking about climate change for example, other countries might think the UK is more habitable. What's to stop an invasion?

We need tax from AI / mechanisation more than the dc born today.

And again what does this look like and who pays for it? The tech companies aren't exactly altruistic now so what will change?

Depopulation is necessary if we are to keep up with a million or more net immigrants each year. They only way the country can manage is to discourage people who are already here from having more children. I think the government are doing a very good job at this, ensuring average working people can't afford to have children of their own. It's the only way we can keep the floodgates open.

It's due to level off soon, I think.

Fewer people need less don’t they?

If you have idk 7bn v 13bn world population and the latter keeps going up how do we navigate that?

As for how to get taxes from AI I’d suggest people start thinking about that instead of increasing birth rate as there’s no stopping tech progression.

I get the consumption issues b/n countries but on just a basic level do you think a lower global population by a few billion say could lead to lower strain on resources?

That's my point, it isn't as basic as "there are less people", it's far more complex with the changing demographics 🤦🏻‍♀️

"For instance, the per capita amount of energy we use peaks betweenn ages 35 and 55, falls, and then rises again from age 70 onwards, as older people are more likelyy to stay indoors longer and live alone in larger homes. This century’s extraordinary growth in older populations could offset declines from falling populations."

"Richer countries consume more. So as more countries get wealthier and healthier but with fewer children, it’s likely more of the global population will become higher emitters."

Does none of this make sense, I don't know how else to say it?

And again why will there be less conflict? There are huge economic implications for one.

As for how to get taxes from AI I’d suggest people start thinking about that instead of increasing birth rate as there’s no stopping tech progression.

No suggestions?

Are you really at face emojis, it’s not that hard to answer without them.

It’s a pretty simple question. I know about consumption differences already I don’t need that information. I’d still go for lower globally. What are you arguing for exactly? Broadly which populations do you want to increase?

Re AI suggestion is as below stop focusing on upping birth rates and think about the workforce in twenty to thirty years and match what you will need.

People seem late to the oh no we’re depopulating issue just as we actually do need to do that.

Are you really at face emojis,

Yes because I have repeatedly said the same thing & as I said I'm not sure what else to say.

What are you arguing for exactly?

All I did is ask you why less people means less resources and less conflict? What is confusing you?

Broadly which populations do you want to increase?

Where have I ever said populations should increase?

Acknowledging that there they are huge implications of an ageing population doesn't mean I think we should be pushing for a baby boom...

We should be planning for the changes though or at the very least discussing them but as many posters said upthread people think it's not an issue or less people mean less resources are used so all good.
**

Yes, care for the elderly is going to become an even bigger problem than it is now.

We all need to do everything we reasonably can to stay fit and well because help will become increasingly harder to find.

I haven’t said all good actually I’ve posted it will be tricky and politically difficult.

But given the other opposing issues such as workforce and resources I’d go for a reduction.

Up until this point those two things haven’t been as pressing or relevant, and people have enjoyed the upsides of population growth more, but now they are becoming increasingly problematic.

So I’d factor that in to policy today due to lag to get to workforce age.

I wouldn't worry. Once assisted dying is brought in, it'll be offered to those who can't look after themselves eventually.

Bit like Canada.

Why would you think this is bad??? "No no I insist on lying in my own filth!"

I agree. I don’t want to be left for years rotting away in a home with no quality of life.

My husband told me decades ago that if he goes down hill mentally he wants to go to Switzerland. I hope the bill is passed so he can have that choice at home.

Excellent. Something to look forward to then.