In 4 years, 2029, UK deaths will exceed births!

[TheMintCritic]

Just came across this and thought it was wild… according to the ONS, by 2029 the number of deaths in the UK is expected to outnumber the number of births for the first time in decades.

• Our fertility rate is only about 1.5 kids per woman, well below replacement.
• Meanwhile, the population is ageing — all those baby boomers are moving into their 70s and 80s.
• The result? The natural population growth turns negative, meaning any population increase will rely entirely on immigration.

It’s crazy to think that in just 4 years, births won’t even keep up with deaths. Makes you wonder what that’ll mean for schools, NHS, pensions, and housing.

Bore off.

In all fairness there are grim spots. There are blocks in Dundee where council workers and posties only enter the building in pairs for safety. There’s a block in Perth I’m involved in for work that’s predominantly short stay accommodation and whenever anyone moves out the council replace letter box with a blank plate to stop the neighbours from posting their used needles through.

One of my friends lives in a tower block in Dundee (Lochee) and it does sound rather grim. One day, he tried to leave his flat to go to work only to be faced with armed police officers, who ordered him to go back indoors until they had dealt with an incident in the building.

Some months ago, my friend had a problem neighbour who made a lot of noise and annoyed others. One day, he was badly beaten up by other neighbours and ended up in hospital. My friend saw blood and scattered teeth in the stairwell.

A good kicking was a traditional way to resolve neighbourly disputes in tough areas when I was growing up

You think a rapidly aging population is a good thing?

It's not ageing as fast as china, if that's any consolation. Or South Korea

Well, I definitely don’t think a continuously expanding population is a good thing.

Isn't this what happens in the animal kingdom?

Many species will reduce their litter sizes, according to demand.

Sure it will mean trouble with care issues but to be frank, having been in a few nursing homes, we keep people alive for far too long

Unfortunately, if you get dementia, you won't be able to do that as you won't be competent to even work out how to do it. You'll probably forget your plan, forget where you hid the gun and wonder why you've got a wetsuit in your wardrobe!

Nail on the head with every point you make.

More or Less this morning had a thing on UK birth rates. It's been below the 2.1 replacement level since the 1970s.

But it's only after about 2010 when it was 1.9 that it's fallen to 1.4 or something.

Nail on the head again. We can't afford for the "wrong" kind of people to keep popping out kids but the "right" kind can't afford more than one. We need the next generation to have a work ethic, not a life on benefits ethic.

Agree completely. We need to incentivise working people to have more children. Not those living on benefits.

Is that the distant chime of eugenics on the breeze ?

No, the distant chimes of logic and common sense.

There's a place for high density, particularly for singles and couples without kids. At present, we've huge numbers of "family" homes with gardens that have been converted into flats and HMO's, either for unemployed or for young single workers, or for students. Those homes could be re-converted back into family homes if we built new high density flats for the young singles, students, couples without children, etc. Likewise, there are huge numbers of "flats above shops" on our run down High Streets that could be converted into flats for singles/students, etc. We just need governmental push (and grants/incentives, relaxation of planning laws etc) to make it happen.

My son lives in an HMO in London - a large family home & garden converted into 12 bed sits with a communal kitchen and lounge. The garden is derelict because none of the tenants can be bothered and nor can the landlord. He'd far prefer to be in purpose built single occupancy flats, like those he lived in on Uni Campus, which were better suited to communal living. He's a relatively high earning 24 year old graduate, but still can't afford his own flat, hence having to live in a HMO!

Plus advocating for drug addicts, criminals and people living chaotic lives to be funded to have kids is advocating for very abused children to increase. Why would you do this?

Which is what was said last time it was tried.

So you're happy with the taxpayer funding and incentivising drug addicts, alcoholics and "lifetime benefit" people to keep having more children, probably abusing them in some way, those children having a crap childhood and probably ending up druggies, alcoholics or lifestyle benefit claimants too??

I'd rather taxpayers fund those with a work ethic who are more likely to have children with a work ethic, so they are more likely to contribute to society rather than takers.

Were you born to impoverished drug addicts at all, Serendipity? What was your upbringing like?

Yes, my parents were one of six and one of four - none of them had more than four max, four had none at all (and that was my mum having 2 by 2 husbands, so 8 kids from 10 parents).

This has big implications for generational wealth - the death of the boomer generation will result in a large wealth transfer from typically wealthy individuals to a smaller number of descendents.

I.e. it's likely that my childfree aunt will leave to her niblings as well as our own parents.

This will likely increase inequality.

Mercifully free of eugenics.

And yours ?

Yep it’s all about WHO is having the kids and WHO is emigrating here.

This. As PP said, it's never been done - once birth rates drop below replacement levels its game over. Bad for humans but good for the environment and will rebalance A BIT in 3 or 4 generations.

I think the fact you won’t address my question speaks for itself.

Easy to cheer on drug addicted and impoverished babies to uphold a principle when that will never be you.