People who bang on about population collapse/species extinction

[Fragmentedbrain]

Yeah Elon Musk is weird and who cares but it's not just him.

Why do they think they are going to convince people to have kids with this threat?

I don't really mind if the species becomes extinct in the future why would I. And if I were on the fence about having kids I think the prospect of them living through the end times would be a tick in the don't bother box.

Don't get me wrong the human experiment has been cool and interesting and I hope we go on to achieve great things in the future... But I'm not THAT fussed. Why is he??

(Also isn't AI going to render loads of us obsolete anyway?)

All power hungry headcases want to live forever, and if that's not possible they want their descendants to keep going forever. Humans are tenacious, they have spread all over the planet because they will eat almost anything and can adapt themselves to survive in almost any environment. The possibility of complete extinction is almost zero. A reduction in the human population would have a hugely positive affect on the planet but what most people seem to worry about is a financial issue, there being enough young people to support aging populations. So like everything else, it's really just about money. I am getting on and I don't think any of my dc want children, so personally we can all go to hell in a handcart for all I care.

I suppose to have died out as a species isn't that big an issue.

It's the phase where we're in the process of dying out that might be painful. How long does that phase last, and what does it look like for us?

I write this as a childfree person in my 40s, who cares not one iota for the societal implications of my choice.

I am positive about the future of humanity. I want humanity to survive.. I'd like to see us on other planets. I think we should try the best we can with what we've been given.
But Elon Musk is crazed. There'd be no population crisis if we actually worked together on making living standards and healthcare better for everyone. He's a megalomaniac. He doesn't want conditions to improve for everyone he's just gone full superemiscist. There's no population crisis in most of Africa for example... but that's not what he's talking about!! He's not pro immigration.
So this is not about protecting the human race at all for him.. it's about some mad fascist nonsense.
He's not pro universal healthcare..
This man doesn't really care about human life. Just his own vision!

You're right they are narcissists and they can't imagine what people who don't feel the urge to replicate themselves endlessly might find motivational.

Well I suppose one of the resons why we have an ecological crisis is because we don't give a toss about the survival of our species or any other for that matter.

I assume he fussed as he wants workers in future decades - persuably cheap workers which if there a reduction in working population wages wages may increase.

He may also be worried he may be asked to pay more tax as less workers less people to spread tax over - debts levels already high - and only so low you can cut services so tax the rich much more is an obvious solution.

I think others raisng issue would like some government action to make it just a big easier for people to have the number of kids they want. It often gets shouted down as "forcing" people to have kids but currently for every two kids born in UK another wanted but not had.

At minute if it were easier to have another child many couple would - but once you get sort of below 1.4 fertilty rate that's been seen to shift in societies- number of kids people want starts to decline as well.

A.I hard to know how that will impact there's a lot of hype but there already a population reduction built in - so any miss match may be short lived.

The US Agriculture secretary she of just buy chicken to deal with egg prices fame - was suggesting automation on farms to replace the deported migrant workers - and many in sector point out if that was possible it would already have been done - there just so many crops it's not going to work for. They'll likely go with force labour of some kind - possible prison populations. So sometime tech solutions just are't going to cut it or don't exist yet.

I think population decline built in now - it's happening - yet governments seem surprised at implications. Closing of school and maternity units - impact on tax systems and services - changing infrastructure to deal with aging population. Clearly Musk doesn't care about any of that but you'd hope somewhere preparations and plans were being made for needed adjustments.

I thought having fewer kids was better for our overall survival anyway.

If they really wanted women to have more kids they'd build a society in which having children was valued. They'd offer paid maternity leave, free to access maternal care, post partum care, and build great schools. They'd support disabled kids and their parents. They'd pay women to stay at home for the first 3 years. They'd make sure women and children were looked after post divorce.

Do you see any of those things happening? Its as if they are completely oblivious to what it takes to actually raise a child.

The world population has tripled since the 1950s.

We could do with having two thirds less people on the planet again.

To be honest the only way back would be to stop letting women have a taste of what a free life feels like. And I hope to God this never happens, it would be worse than species extinction.

To be honest the only way back would be to stop letting women have a taste of what a free life feels like. And I hope to God this never happens, it would be worse than species extinction.

I think that why some don't want to have the discussion about raising birth rates - the assumption is it must mean loss of women's rights.

Even UN mentioned this in report they did recently that that shouldn't be the option under consideration. They looked at I think 14 countries and found in I think all couples were having fewer kids than they wanted due to barriers most economic few social. They suggest governemnts looked at tackling those.

Social and economic barriers, not choice, driving global fertility crisis: UNFPA

This is a summary - and it's not all good findings - unplanned pg and pressure to have more than wanted kids exists along side people not having as many as they want.

The ONS figures show it's fairly stable number of women who have no children - the falls come from family size declining. Yet many parental surveys show here and in other countries like France parents would like more.

No I mean women can do anything they want. Once you've tasted that the idea of spending the second half of your life in servitude to someone you may not even like is a much harder sell. Some women don't have kids because of the economic issues I imagine but then babies have been born in poverty since the dawn of time so this can't be the core issue. Plenty more don't have kids because there is no objective case in their favour (you either feel the instinct or you don't).

Those whose wealth is greater by orders of magnitude than that of normal pople are prone to feeling godlike. Those who feel godlike are likely to feel as if they ought to be immortal.

I think most would agree with this but it glosses over various problems. Eg the relative proportions of economically active and inactive persons, the difficulties inherent to population implosion as each generation numbers less than half that of the one above it.

UN survey went into countires and asked parents - not sure why these parents would lie about constraints on them or why imaging a different answer than people affected is better TBH.

Happiness level in parent research do have a dip in early years. However a lot the research been done in US where parents are just more unhappy - given their poor support structures and long hour work culture and communtes it's not a surprise.

Parents with independent adult kids are in many surveys the happiest in societies - though like all parenthood it's a gamble and societal structrues in the west have delayed and made this harder to acheive for young people.

I think it's great women they days have a choice about whether they want kids or not - it not for everyone but many of us do want kids and actually do enjoy it.

I do think governments should look at constaint stopping people having number of kids they want if they seriously do want to bring birth rates up but mostly should start actively planning to deal with the population decline and aging population that will persist till some eliquibrium is found at some distant point.

If you don't want kids don't have them. Ignore Elon Musk - he's shown the world who his is and frankly he's best off ignored.

We are the biggest ever generation of childfree women in the west, and even in countries like Korea and Japan. This is despite the relentless thrum of social pressure - the false messaging that having children is the greatest happiness women can ever know. Women aren't putting off fulfilment because we're worried about mortgages. We're doing it because we see the exhausted faces and hear over and over again "nobody tells you it will be like this!".

I mean they do. Tell you I mean.

So don't have kids if you don't want to.

However not everyone is like you - some of us do want them and despite negative mesaging on here do overall enjoy them.

Messaging I got about motherhood was it was hard work and relentless and I should have a nice career instead and then maybe one child in my 40s - even had upset from family when I was pg married in my late 20s as we didn't stick to someone else's plan (DH was on fully on board and we were financially indpendent).

I say again for every 2 kids born in UK research has found another is wanted but not born so currently there is pent up demand for kids and if any goverenment actaully wants to increase birth rate easiest way us to tap into that while it's still there.

I get that's not your experinced and that you think no-one should want kids and that anyone who does is clearly miserable and a bit of an idiot for falling for it - it's a view I see a lot on here - not what I see in RL but there we are.

Seperate to that is the need to actually plan for the population decline that's built in currently with the numbers. So less school, less teachers, less children services - some plan on how to pay for elder care how to not overtax declining working population not endless kicking can down the road as we are rapidly running out of road.

Er that's not what I said. I said there's no objective reason to want kids (especially now we are no longer cared for by families in old age). They are a calling on an instinctive level. A lot of people don't have that instinct. I doubt a single woman has longed to be a mother but decided not to because it's hard to get on the property ladder these days.

I doubt a single woman has longed to be a mother but decided not to because it's hard to get on the property ladder these days.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537124000678
Results show that surging house prices discourage fertility, with a ten percent increase in real house prices associated with a reduction of 0.01 to 0.03 births per woman

This hit the news cycle a while ago - so again no idea why you doubts, beliefs feeling are better than actual research conducted on such matters guess that's just our post truth world.

I'm honestly not sure even my parents had kids to look after them in old age or even my grandparents - they seem to have had kids for a variety for reasons not least they like kids and could afford to do so.

I'm not going to post again there just no point.

Some studies have bias built in and this is one. I have no doubt many people have children because they like kids but before now even people who dislike them had little choice or alternative life experience. I know a lot of older women who say they wouldn't if they could have been born later (no, actually, not my own mother 🙂).

Basically this nails it. Subsidise having kids- particularly support single parent families and make it easy for single women to get fertility treatment. If they want to shift our future population demographic then increasing taxation on pensions and spending the money on young families would be a start.

I'd also point out previous population collapse has happened - the Black Death, WWII, mass famines on multiple occasions- humans tend to bounce back in a few generations.

South Korea does both of these things (you get several hundred dollars US a month plus subbed IVF). It still hasn't shifted the dial. Because people who don't want to have kids don't want to have kids.

Population decline shouldn't be an issue if it's slow enough and managed well. But currently I'm worried it won't be. No one talks about how our democratic processes should be changed to help manage it.

There is a serious risk that the growing pensioner demographic will just vote for parties with short term policies that benefit them, at the expense of the working age people who are needed to support them (you can see it already with wealthy pensioners retaining their winter fuel allowance - totally unnecessarily, when the money could be much better used elsewhere)

Personally I think that election votes should be weighted according to age group, to balance out unfair demographic advantages. But I can't see that ever happening as most people don't have the statistical knowledge to understand it (including our politicians!)

Just throwing money at women isn't the solution, I was talking about building a society that is fit to raise children in. People need secure affordable homes, schools, libraries, childcare, jobs, healthcare. Support when things go wrong. A sense of community and generosity cannot be built on animosity, anxiety and poverty.
Capitalism is a Ponzi scheme. The conditions those men need to stay super wealthy is not contributing towards building a civilisation fit for people.