Population overload.

[chaosmaker]

Just wondering if anyone else thinks that we are at a stage where we should incentivise/reward people who choose not to breed. We're on a finitely resourced planet and I've just read a thread where people were talking about some celebrity having a 4th kid via a surrogate.
Should we talk about how the more kids you have, the more competition you are making for them in adult life?

AI is already being used to take over previously human staffed jobs. It's been creeping into jobs like journalism for ages.
There have been famines in various countries for ever and yet we are at a point in evolution where we have more power over our fertility than ever.
Interested in what other people think about this.

Human reproduction is literally a primal urge. God above.

The growing elderly population may be less of a burden if they can remain fitter but that's probably true of all ages given just obesity levels without what health issues they lead to.

You what? This makes NO SENSE at all.

Tell someone with Alzheimer's they need to remain fitter.

Tell a 92 year old they need to remain fitter.

Nope. They either run out of food, or their predator population explodes. There's no inbuilt fertility control. Some species have a degree of breeding control (won't mate if they can't find a suitable nesting site), but that's a different thing - and even that is rare.

And this.

The growing elderly population may be less of a burden

A burden? well, thanks for that. So far this week as a childfree woman I've been called a baby killer, a psychopath, selfish, uncaring, and now a burden. Not for the first time, either.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'm in my late 60s and childfree - a lot of people on this site seem to equate those things with being some sort of existential threat to the equilibrium of society. A bit like witches.

(I don't disagree with older people needing to be as fit as they can be, there have been numerous articles and books written on exercise in older life on the basis of 'use it or lose it.')

(I don't disagree with older people needing to be as fit as they can be, there have been numerous articles and books written on exercise in older life on the basis of 'use it or lose it.')

Of course. For their own health and well being.

But fitness doesn't override chronic issues that occur with age or infirmity.

If you’re interested, there’s a Triggernometry episode called The Depopulation Bomb about this. Also a documentary about it.

As others have said there is a declining birth rate fuelled by more people not having children. This is something that needs to be planned for. There are currently 900,000 50 year olds in the uk. 700,000 babies were born in the last year. Those babies will enter the workforce just as those 50 year olds retire. So with fewer people entering workforce than who are retiring, how will the pensions be paid? Also, who will care for them and how will taxes be raised for the NHS care of older people?

There isn’t a moral judgement on anyone choosing to have kids or not, but it does need to be financially and practically planned for. In Japan it’s in the news regularly but doesn’t appear to be in the UK.

There isn’t a moral judgement on anyone choosing to have kids or not, but it does need to be financially and practically planned for. In Japan it’s in the news regularly but doesn’t appear to be in the UK.

Exactly. Everyone gets old.

Had an IFA I was consulting about pensions say that the fact that people get old seems to come as a complete surprise to successive UK governments, but that they only plan for the term they are going to be in office - after that it's someone else's problem. The trouble with that philosophy is that neglected problems just get to the point were something HAS to be done and of course, thanks to the neglect it's very expensive.

@DidItMatter

"As others have said there is a declining birth rate fuelled by more people not having children. This is something that needs to be planned for. There are currently 900,000 50 year olds in the uk. 700,000 babies were born in the last year. Those babies will enter the workforce just as those 50 year olds retire. So with fewer people entering workforce than who are retiring, how will the pensions be paid? Also, who will care for them and how will taxes be raised for the NHS care of older people? "

++++

You raise a number of really good pounds which we can already see be played out.

For example a large part of the delay in A&E is caused by a lack of support services for elderly after they leave hospital. So instead they stay in hospital that blocks a bed.

The two largest areas of Government spending are on the NHS and state / public sector pensions which continues to grow every year. This means less money for things like education etc.

Do you think the people having children now worry about who is going to fund pensions and nurse those children when they get old? Never mind us oldies now, it is the new generation of babies being born who are really going to suffer in old age.

They don't think about the child being an adult at all, let alone elderly. You see this on the baby-naming threads: it's all about what's cute now, for a small child.

I’ve just had a peek. Crikey!

Oh please, what did you expects on the baby names board? It's not representative of the whole parenting population. It'd be like heading over to the larger families board and declaring that depopulation isn't going to be a problem.

They don't think about the child being an adult at all, let alone elderly. You see this on the baby-naming threads: it's all about what's cute now, for a small child.

Please. The BNB is hardly an indication of anything except baby names.

There is enough people having children. Just the wrong people.
Not sure how to fix that though.

The baby-naming threads are just an example.

How many prospective parents think about the fact that the baby they plan to conceive will one day be old, will likely suffer ill-health, and will die? That the baby will, as it gets older, have to deal with the death of every adult it knows and loves in childhood? That the baby may suffer terrible mental or physical ill-health?

Well, I would say all of them. It is the nature of the human condition after all, you can't outrun it.

Crikey, what a dystopian thought.

AI is taking over so you want to stop humans from repopulating the earth?! You want to eradicate humans and replace them with robots?

Hmm… maybe you’re AI gone rogue!

Yes, agree.

Also, anyone advocating more children be born, please don't complain when their children are born to awful families; food and water prices rise; your children can't afford to rent or buy a home; or you're stuck in traffic with 200 other cars.

Are people really this stupid to think we need to increase human populations? It's fine to want a family but actively promoting the idea that we need more people is fucking stupid

How many prospective parents think about the fact that the baby they plan to conceive will one day be old, will likely suffer ill-health, and will die? That the baby will, as it gets older, have to deal with the death of every adult it knows and loves in childhood? That the baby may suffer terrible mental or physical ill-health?

God alive! Not many. Are you OK?

Hmm… maybe you’re AI gone rogue!

Who'd have thought that when skynet went live that it wouldn't launch the nukes at all but just hen peck people inscentantly about everything on social media until they gave up on life and collapsed in a heap of guilt ridden inertia? Doesn't have the visuals of a good block buster though.

Yeah, of course, it's the people who think twice about bringing a child into existence, only to suffer (inevitable to some extent), who are the weird ones. Right thinking people just act on their selfish desire for a baby, and narcissistic instinct to pass their genes on.

Yeah, of course, it's the people who think twice about bringing a child into existence, only to suffer (inevitable to some extent), who are the weird ones. Right thinking people just act on their selfish desire for a baby, and narcissistic instinct to pass their genes on.

Are you referring to everyone who has a child then?

Everyone who conceives intentionally. I'm not saying people should not have children, but they should give a fuck of a lot more thought to the consequences for those children - which means thinking beyond childhood itself.

It is laughable that it is the childfree who are considered selfish. The most selfish act imaginable is to bring another human being into existence without bothering to think about the whole of the life that the child will experience as a result.

*Everyone who conceives intentionally. I'm not saying people should not have children, but they should give a fuck of a lot more thought to the consequences for those children - which means thinking beyond childhood itself.

It is laughable that it is the childfree who are considered selfish. The most selfish act imaginable is to bring another human being into existence without bothering to think about the whole of the life that the child will experience as a result.*

You've managed to turn a conversation about 'global populations' into individual, personal motivations.

Plus I think most people are aware that their children will die after them. ( hopefully, but not always ) as you mentioned.