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

They're just selfish.

Its easy to absolve yourself of responsibility towards future generations if you pretend there aren't going to be any.

I don’t see a fall in global population any time soon but what is a bigger issue as regards tax to provide for the elderly is AI-it will take so many jobs -there won’t be incomes to provide the tax.
See the diary of a ceo latest podcast with Geoffrey Hinton an AI developer.

@BoldGreenDreamer Unfortunately it can be the case that young people wait longer for transplant organs than older people.

There is no upper age limit for people to receive transplantation - it is more decided on general overall health/likelihood of benefit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

In 2018, a new computer algorithm was launched to cut deaths on the waiting list.
It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

In principle that doesn't bother me.

If you have a young person who could survive for years without, vs a 60 year old that wouldnt last a week, the immediacy of the need is obviously an important factor.

My understanding is that the NHS cannot deny treatment solely on age, but can give preference based on long-term benefit (where age is relevant).

I'm sure everyone would have their own views on individual cases and overall policy and I'd be reluctant to be too critical of how decisions are made.

I think the general point was more that ethics and pragmatism do intertwine, to the extent that (I would say) it is unethical to not be at least partially informed by pragmatic factors, when addressing people's needs and wants (particularly when there's not enough to give everything to everyone).

I do recall that, in one of the early waves of Covid, when there weren't enough ventilators to go around, some NHS hospitals triaged, in part, on the basis of age.

Some in here would call that morally repugnant. I would disagree (though, no doubt, there is ethical complexity).

Edit - appreciate the info you share, though, its a good example of the challenges inherent in providing a social service with insufficient resources.

Yes that’s what I think people should be considering and planning for.

I think humans dying out is nothing but a good thing. We are awful and have destroyed this beautiful planet.

My understanding (not a medic) is that ventilation is a brutal process and you have to be fairly robust to tolerate it. Older, frail people generally would not be so its not just a process of saying the lives of younger people are more valuable (although I'm old, and I would argue they are) it's that older people were less likely to survive ventilation. Likewise CPR. Relatives often complained about not suitable for CPR decisions on the very elderly. But CPR is also brutal, so let's say its done on a very elderly care home resident, and is successful. They then survive a few more weeks, or even months, but with all their ribs shattered.

"The planet" isn't better or worse off with or without humans. Nothing is good or bad for it without someone to observe it and judge "this is good/bad". It isn't sentient. Animals suffer and die whether humans are here or not, they often die in horrific ways particularly prey animals. Other species going extinct is only a problem when people notice that a species is going extinct and it's sad. Animals aren't aware of their own species going extinct. They won't worry about it or mourn it.
So many ridiculous replies about what's good or bad for the planet as if that has any moral value by itself.

The planet is the basis of all life and when referred to, means the whole of that life on it.
Not caring if our species dies is not selfish at all. I have consciously not bred any more people as there was no need and I wouldn't expose anyone I had created to other people. We deserve an extinction event to happen to us.

So in your view, it is not legitimate for people have opinions on whether population stagnation/loss is good, bad or indifferent because the planet is not sentient? In essence, what you're also suggesting is akin to saying that a tree doesn't fall in the forest unless somebody is there to hear it.That's a line of reasoning that belongs in the realm of philosophy. What I'm talking about is biological, not philosophical. I don't think this thread can support a philosophical debate actually. It's gone into some irrelevant, unproductive cul de sacs already. But thanks for the interesting take all the same.

Even if you think it "deserved", there's no reason to think an extinction event is on humanity's foreseeable horizon.

Its selfish to ignore the challenges presented by the rapid decline in birthrates (which will be substantially shouldered by younger and future generations) and refuse to even entertain the notion of how we can best help navigate them, by hiding behind the false idea of an imminent and inevitable extinction.

Incidentally, I do not accept the humanity in general deserves to go extinct.

Knowledge of our adverse impact on the environmental is relatively recent, and is not universal among humans worldwide.

Some communities, particularly in developing countries that have not meaningfully contributed to the climate crisis, will suffer most greatly (and yes, its likely many will die) from the effects of climate change, despite having little little-to-no culpability for it. Do they deserve it?

They're making the point that a green, biodiverse and climatically stable earth being a better thing, than an ecologically devastated hot house earth is a subjective judgement based upon human values about which kind of earth we prefer / are adapted to survive in. So yes, a bit like the tree in the forest thing.

It seems contradictory to want to eliminate humanity in order to preserve / restore earth as according to human ideals. If there are no humans, then human ideals (about what constitutes a better earth) cease to have any relevance. And it may as well all be radioactive deserts and cockroaches. Who are we to judge that that is inferior to beauty, diversity, abundance etc - anthropocentric ideals.

Besides which, it's all irrelevant because humans aren't likely to go extinct soon. So if we care about human suffering, we should want to address human problems including demographic collapse, also including ecological collapse. Rather than surrender to an easy kind of nihilism.

I don't disagree with any of that, except for the "who are we to judge" thing. Pretending we are unbiased and floating above it all with no subjective point of view doesn't work. It isn't in human nature. We can even acknowledge that our judgements are completely subjective and still feel exactly the same way. I can't be anything but human and I won't try. It's a well reasoned point of view, but IMO the reasoning only works as an abstract philosophical concept.

Its a good point, too. Life has thrived in the hotter climates of past eras, like the Cretaceous, and judging the "goodness" of the Earth's climate by reference to human perceptions of it (and human value-judgments) while simultaneously wishing for human extinction, does seem to fly in the face of reason.

Being optimistic about the benefits of population decline, on the other hand, is absolutely fair and sensible - but the responsible thing to do is prepare for it and mitigate the negative elements which, unless some other viable solution emerges, is likely to require an acceptance of certain societal changes (not all of which will be desirable on an individual level).

Yes what I posted was a philosophical take which is what yours was too! Saying that humans deserve to go extinct is hardly a "biological" take is it. In fact it reminds me more of the Christian idea of original sin. How can humanity in general "deserve" anything? Are we inherently "bad" just for existing? Am I bad? Are you bad?

I think people are worried because decline in white Europeans… they are scared black African will over populate the world

they have less white Europeans

I think tapering off gradually, although it will cause chaos, is the best possible option. We don't deserve this planet and all the creatures and plants would be much better without us. It's really not something to get too upset about.

Living with a teen is the greatest contraception ever.

Also, even more reason to be encouraging migration into our country, even working to attract people.

Oh wait. We are doing the opposite.

🤷

It all reminds me of this conservative/liberal heatmap, where the fundamental divide is whether your dearest are also your nearest, or whether you care most for all life no matter how remote.

I was amazed to open this thread and find Mumsnet so firmly jammed at the Extremist Liberal end of the spectrum. How’s that happened?

And keep doing so as people age? Just go up with numbers

We can’t just keep on having more humans like a population Ponzi scheme. Western governments love more and more endless consumers but it inevitably will not be for the good of humans or the planet.
Less humans is good. We need to lower our demand for the things humans produce, most of which is unneeded for our wellbeing and allow assisted dying on demand to reduce the burden on younger populations.

Nail on the head. There are workers working to pay for even "passive" income - it doesn't grow itself - it relies on a functioning prosperous economy.

@MuckFusk
Okay but it seems to me that your conclusions are that:

1. We have to preserve Earth in conditions idyllic for humans (I fully agree this is a very high priority worthy of drastic means including managed population decline)

2. Humans ceasing to exist would be a good way to achieve 1)

3. Human suffering and death is bad

and

4. Extinction is what humanity deserves

And I'm just saying... I think there are some logical fallacies / inconsistencies there.

A bit like saying we have to preserve the Mona Lisa by locking it in a sealed box and throwing it to the bottom of the sea forever where noone will ever see it again. The means defeat the objective, or make it relatively meaningless. Maybe you feel that in those circumstances, the art piece that cannot ever be observed or appreciated isn't less meaningful than one which can. But I disagree.

Likewise, it's hard to reconcile your feelings that human beings deserve extinction and that would be a good thing to happen, but also that human suffering and death is bad, when these are pre-requisite to human extinction.

Lastly, philosophy kind of does matter if you want to meaningfully engage in any topic that contains value judgements about what matters, what is good or bad, or about "deserving". These are philosophical matters.

It’s not just endless consumers the western governments want, but an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labour. The destruction of women’s rights would also be a bonus to those in power in Britain at least, and I guess the US have similar issues (in England the destruction of women’s rights is part of the class issue and goes back to the founding of the early modern state, and the founding therefore of modern work patterns).

Lower populations are in no way a threat to ‘civilization’. There are and have been many civilisations that function better with fewer numbers. I do not believe in the religion of ‘immigration is essential’ - I might be more impressed if considerations of the cost of living for working people were equally important, or if serious discussions of numbers were attached. Given the millions we’ve taken in over the last few years I think any concern about current working age populations ought to be allayed by now. Unless all those millions of immigrants were pensioners?

The age burden is a problem but some of that is due to very deliberate policies providing for the entitlement and convenience of the current elderly over everyone else, and intergenerational inequality.