AIBU The global fertility crisis is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced?

[plantsdieinmyhouse]

We’re in a ‘global fertility crisis’.

I’m astounded that global (even UK/European) fertility decline to below the replacement rate of 2.1 (thought to have happened now) isn’t in the forefront of most people’s radar. There are barely even any politicians acknowledging it let alone devising policies to tackle it.

Thee are even people who still think we’re in the 70s/80s/90s and ‘overpopulation’ is still an issue.

Once everyone who’s alone now is dead the human race will be in terminal decline.

Nothing else matters if there’s none of us left!

Even on a personal level a large proportion of women don’t have the number of DCs they expect to.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/43a9bd63-25c9-4941-bc99-fc9f7e42c12a?shareToken=29bf27cb9dafe9af7a006bc25355e411

We have 5 and constant comments about having too many. You just can’t win can you.

For the future of mankind and the planet this can only be a good thing

far too many of us!

however I accept there is a serious economic discussion to be had about how to pay pensions when there are far less working age people to fund them

Funny how many people never do get around to suggesting that, isn't it. It's a fascinating social phenomenon how people tend to protect to the wealthy from paying their fair share.

Let's say everything you posted is entirely correct, and would have prevented or mitigated the issue...doesn't really help, does it? The next generation of retirees cant be supported through generous national reserves of accumulated hindsight.

Re. immigration - its not a viable long term solution, given that population decline is a global issue. Its certainly helped postpone the worst of the effect (which is why the UK isnt in the same level of crisis as, say, South Korea) but we cant go on importing more and more immigrants every year (and I don't mean because of dislike of high immigration, I mean because the well of working-age immigrants will run dry).

Is your personal level of comfort really that much more important than that of your kids or grandkids? Is there nothing to be said for sharing the burden?
I don't think anyone here has said they don't want to share the burden.
Many of us want to and always have.

I'm retired. I absolutely think the WFA should be scrapped for all but the poorest.
When I stopped work I downsized to a tiny cottage, volunteer for two charities and am part of environmental organisations in my town. I keep healthy as possible. I paid tax and saved into a private pension for 40 years. I've tried to do everything I can not to be a burden and to contribute.
I don't have kids but I do care hugely about society and the future of the environment and for the children growing now.

It will be a huge issue for the next few generations.

After that, in the long term, it’s good news.

Oh no , how terrible…

And what is the “fair share” for the wealthy? The top 10% already pay over 60% of all tax, while generally receiving fewer benefits. At the end of the day you need to keep the support of the net contributors.

I'm entirely up for it, but it doesn't solve the problem. Countries with more progressive taxation have the same issues: low birth rates, population decline and an increased spend on retirement-age benefits.

I do think more progressive taxation would be a huge societal good, it's just that available evidence suggests it does little or nothing for the aging population and demographic crisis.

Well, yes. Im 30, out of my friendship group of 6 only two are mothers. We all wanted children at one stage but the cost of everything is the main deterrent. Can’t afford nursery, can’t afford for one parent to stay home. Don’t want to sacrifice a basic decent life to live in almost poverty just to bring a child into a world where there is a constant threat of nuclear war and climate change is at its worst.

Well, if you agree that current retirees and the next generation of retirees need to make some sacrifices (to avoid an even bigger crisis being passed down the line), then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

I'm not advocating for sudden pulling the rug out from the feet of any generation, but we need to make phased changes on a fairly aggressive timetable.

Where will the money come from when the current group of well off elderly people have died (or been put down when no longer economically viable)? * *@BoldGreenDreamer.

If I'm in a very gloomy mood then I think it may go all cultural revolution and the young will roam the country, killing off the old and rich - and likely anyone else that gets in their way.

I think we ought to do something before it reaches that stage.

What money? I don't follow.

You are suggesting the elderly should contribute more and take less out.
That money.

OP who are you?

Please tell us a bit about yourself please?

Seriously I think how we are causing other animals to become extinct, how we are killing our planet, how we are blowing each other up, these are all bigger things to focus on.

We already do pay for it through taxation in countries with socialized medicine. Except for the wealthy ones, elderly people have paid their fair share for health care over their lifetimes. It's not unrealistic at all to expect that they get the care they need because they paid into the system. Taxing the wealthy at the rates they should be paying and eliminating loopholes is the answer to the eldercare problem, not leaving people without care.

What is WFA?

Wouldn’t this be the best thing for the world / nature etc? Surely the worst thing to happen to the planet was over population / pollution etc

I'm not suggesting they should contribute more? Unless you mean by extending their working life and reducing their retirement? Which is what subsequent generations would also have to do.

We either share the burden of the demographic crisis, or greedily maintain current standards and increase suffering for future generations.

I expect greed will win out until it forces a dramatic collapse.

A contribution they've already made by a lifetime of paying their taxes.

There is no fertility crisis. Women can have babies if they want to. And will if they need to. Human race isn’t going extinct anytime soon.

Just as there is no climate crisis. The climate is changing and incompetence and corruption from governments causes adverse impacts on people. They then gaslight the public further to rip us off even more by blaming it all on climate change.

It seems like this is the next bandwagon that the enlightened progressives will use to drive their own agenda and line their own pockets. The next thing to cause mass hysteria about. After all, the climate bandwagon is starting to fizzle out. The DEI one is almost dead.

I'm a midwife, and it certainly doesn't feel like the population is declining when our 58 bed maternity ward is full to bursting every single day with not enough midwives to look after the amount of birthing women coming through the doors!

There are countries with more progressive taxation, but AFAIK there are no countries which tax the wealthy at the rate they would need to pay in order to fix the eldercare crisis. It needs to be a sweeping change, not a tweak, if it's to make a difference. I do take your point though.