Fertility Shock

professore

Watching this on RTE it talks about the declining birth rate and then talks about the high cost of childcare as a problem and goes on about how the Nordic countries do it so much better. Its true they do it better BUT their birth rates are among the lowest in the world - predictably not mentioned in the documentary of course.

So nice as it is, it isn't the solution to plummeting birth rates.

What do the good people of Boards think the solution is? Or should we go extinct?

Calhoun

Reducing the amount of people on the planet might not be the worst thing.

work

What are you talking about, is it s programme? "Watching this it......"? I do not understand, Please explain.

professore

Calhoun wrote: »

Reducing the amount of people on the planet might not be the worst thing.

We are already well on the way to doing that. Problem is we are going to have a huge amount of old people and very few young people supporting them.

mawk

I don't think we should go extinct, but breeding ourselves down a few billion people doesn't seem like a bad idea to me

professore

work wrote: »

What are you talking about, is it s programme? "Watching this it......"? I do not understand, Please explain.

On RTE 1 tonight

professore

mawk wrote: »

I don't think we should go extinct, but breeding ourselves down a few billion people doesn't seem like a bad idea to me

I agree but a collapse of the birth rate isn't the most stable way to do it.

Purple Mountain

professore wrote: »

We are already well on the way to doing that. Problem is we are going to have a huge amount of old people and very few young people supporting them.

Mandatory euthanasia is the only answer.

Hobosan

We should all stop having children. Then we will realise we have no reason to maintain anything we have and may as well throw the biggest going away party the Universe has ever seen. A great time will be had by all, and many will inevitably end up getting pregnant.

Rinse and repeat.

professore

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Mandatory euthanasia is the only answer.

All joking aside, a gradual reduction would be good to allow tbe big cohort of old people to die off.

mawk

professore wrote: »

I agree but a collapse of the birth rate isn't the most stable way to do it.

I think having a lower birth rate is an ideal route to having fewer people in future generations

professore

mawk wrote: »

I think having a lower birth rate is an ideal route to having fewer people in future generations

Yes but the rate of decline is important.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

Watching this on RTE it talks about the declining birth rate and then talks about the high cost of childcare as a problem and goes on about how the Nordic countries do it so much better. Its true they do it better BUT their birth rates are among the lowest in the world - predictably not mentioned in the documentary of course.

So nice as it is, it isn't the solution to plummeting birth rates.

What do the good people of Boards think the solution is? Or should we go extinct?

The solution to a plummeting birth rate is obviously to encourage people to have more children, by the State introducing incentives for them to do so.

Currently, that’s just not happening at the level it needs to happen, as more and more people are simply more interested in supporting their own lifestyles as opposed to imagining they have any obligation to the State to have more children.

rgodard80a

China had the one child policy, but has relaxed it a little because of age demographics. Too many old people to support the country.

Unfortunately the scumbag element of this country breed like rats, outbreeding decent people. Maybe we should have a licence/exam to breed.

professore

The whole thing with freezing eggs is just weird. It also only has a 5% success rate.

mad muffin

The documentary Idiocy talked about it 10 years ago.

Demonique

professore wrote: »

We are already well on the way to doing that. Problem is we are going to have a huge amount of old people and very few young people supporting them.

The world population is increasing not decreasing

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The solution to a plummeting birth rate is obviously to encourage people to have more children, by the State introducing incentives for them to do so.

Currently, that’s just not happening at the level it needs to happen, as more and more people are simply more interested in supporting their own lifestyles as opposed to imagining they have any obligation to the State to have more children.

Not sure if it would make a lot of difference. Lots of thirty somethings enjoy life too much to have kids.

professore

Demonique wrote: »

The world population is increasing not decreasing

It's now mainly increasing because people are living longer rather than more babies being born like in the past.

cnocbui

I think the western fertility 'problem' will in time, prove to be just as serious as the problem of the world soon running out of food, which was the big worry back in the 70's.

rgodard80a

Hobosan wrote: »

No need for that, with current advances in genetics, parents will be able to identify and abort the dullards. As in Iceland, for example.

Yeah, a lot of them shop in Iceland alright, especially the Northside shopping centre branch.

professore

professore

10 grand cash per kid conceived before 35. As tax relief. Capped at 4 kids.

cnocbui

Could you please make that image larger, it's only 2.5 screen widths wide in Firefox, surely you could manage 4.

professore

cnocbui wrote: »

Could you please make that image larger, it's only 2.5 screen widths wide in Firefox, surely you could manage 4.

Not about to break out photoshop. Here's the site it comes from : https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

RacoonQueen

professore wrote: »

What do the good people of Boards think the solution is?

Designer babies. Make them less loud/expensive/annoying/demanding and I might be interested in having one.
Other than that I'll stick with contributing to the extinction of the species.

Auntie Semite

professore wrote: »

Not sure if it would make a lot of difference. Lots of thirty somethings enjoy life too much to have kids.

Lots of thirty somethings have a future of loneliness, regret and despair to look forward to...not all but lots.

cnocbui

professore wrote: »

Not about to break out photoshop. Here's the site it comes from : https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

That's considerate of you...

RacoonQueen

cnocbui wrote: »

Could you please make that image larger, it's only 2.5 screen widths wide in Firefox, surely you could manage 4.

It's grand in Chrome.

professore

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Lots of thirty somethings have a future of loneliness, regret and despair to look forward to...not all but lots.

Maybe, maybe not. I have kids myself, many of my friends don't, they seem happy enough and have more time to form friendships with other people than I do. My kids will have lives of their own to live. I didn't have kids to stop being lonely. I'm not sure why I had kids. I wouldn't change them for the world but initially it was because my wife wanted kids.

work

We are an infection on the earth and are destroying it. Some believe having kids and a house is a right but this is so wrong it should be earned. Then people believe the state should provide a pension. Why? People argue without kids these pensions can't be paid for. What are these kids slaves for us to milk?
Sorry for the rant but our system is SO WRONG and only leads to massive suffering.
The world needs to be about sustainability of reasonable numbers and not growth. Growth cannot happen forever and I know this goes against everything our society stands for but it is wrong!
Finally why should OAPs sit on their arses it destroys them?

work

We are an infection on the earth and are destroying it. Some believe having kids and a house is a right but this is so wrong it should be earned. Then people believe the state should provide a pension. Why? People argue without kids these pensions can't be paid for. What are these kids slaves for us to milk?
Sorry for the rant but our system is SO WRONG and only leads to massive suffering.
The world needs to be about sustainability of reasonable numbers and not growth. Growth cannot happen forever and I know this goes against everything our society stands for but it is wrong!
Finally why should OAPs sit on their arses it destroys them?

professore

cnocbui wrote: »

That's considerate of you...

It's your browser. The image is fine. It should resize automatically

Auntie Semite

work wrote: »

We are an infection on the earth and are destroying it. Some believe having kids and a house is a right but this is so wrong it should be earned. Then people believe the state should provide a pension. Why? People argue without kids these pensions can't be paid for. What are these kids slaves for us to milk?
Sorry for the rant but our system is SO WRONG and only leads to massive suffering.
The world needs to be about sustainability of reasonable numbers and not growth. Growth cannot happen forever and I know this goes against everything our society stands for but it is wrong!
Finally why should OAPs sit on their arses it destroys them?

Ireland was doing quite well on the issue of a sustainable population until we decided to import masses of other peoples.
You are absolutely right growth cannot go on forever yet our country seems to have fallen into cult like behaviour with its need for endless growth.

professore

work wrote: »

Finally why should OAPs sit on their arses it destroys them?

Is that you Mr. Smith?

I guess they should live with their kids then or pay a decreasing number of young people to wipe their arses in their old age?

cnocbui

professore wrote: »

It's your browser. The image is fine. It should resize automatically

The image is not fine, it's 3000 pixels wide. Try posting a pic of that size in the Photography forum thread "RANDOM PHOTOS LV - NO COMMENTS IN THREAD - 800PIX LONGEST SIDE" and see what happens.

Not all browsers resize automatically and not everyone wants to use Chrome.

Hobosan

If we can sort out the population size and image size crisis in this thread we'd be doing very well.

ShadowHearth

Certain demographic is shooting out babies like crazy and don't intend to be part of contributing sociaty. Pretty sure those babies when grow up will do same thing. So we are sorted on birth rate, but not sure what future this birth rate will bring.
Eventually those who work and keep the ball rolling won't be able to afford even one child.

work

professore wrote: »

work wrote: »

Finally why should OAPs sit on their arses it destroys them?

Is that you Mr. Smith?

I guess they should live with their kids then or pay a decreasing number of young people to wipe their arses in their old age?

Ah the usual moron answers, what percentage of older people need young people to wipe their arses, its very condescendibg of you, I am sure most do fine on their own thank you!

RacoonQueen

cnocbui wrote: »

The image is not fine, it's 3000 pixels wide. Try posting a pic of that size in the Photography forum thread "RANDOM PHOTOS LV - NO COMMENTS IN THREAD - 800PIX LONGEST SIDE" and see what happens.

Not all browsers resize automatically and not everyone wants to use Chrome.

It sounds like you need to try out Conor McGregor's three day anger management course.

professore

cnocbui wrote: »

The image is not fine, it's 3000 pixels wide. Try posting a pic of that size in the Photography forum thread "RANDOM PHOTOS LV - NO COMMENTS IN THREAD - 800PIX LONGEST SIDE" and see what happens.

Not all browsers resize automatically and not everyone wants to use Chrome.

Well if boards have their image tags set up properly this shouldn't happen.

professore

work wrote: »

Ah the usual moron answers, what percentage of older people need young people to wipe their arses, its very condescendibg of you, I am sure most do fine on their own thank you!

Most old people eventually need help with day to day functioning. Many need full time care for years. I have personal experience of this. There are some who are fit and healthy into their 80s but these are a small minority.

Those pension ads of people swanning off to Spain or whatever aren't the case for many. Strokes, diabetes, alzheimers, arthritis etc puts a cramp in your style fairly lively.

The science behind it is disputed, but on balance we probably do need to have less children.

There are parts of impoverished regions of the world which have less of an economic disincentive to have children. Sadly for them, an interim solution will probably be to encourage migration from poorer regions to Europe.

That will only plug the gap in our population pyramid for a limited amount of time, probably our lifetimes (for anyone 30 or younger).

There are too many variables to predict what will happen in 70 years time, or what the world will look like by then. For now, the solution to diminishing birth rates is increased migration.

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

We are already well on the way to doing that. Problem is we are going to have a huge amount of old people and very few young people supporting them.

And this is why the endless growth model is totally unsustainable. At some point, some generation is going to have to face up to this, so it may as well be ours. The planet cannot sustain an indefinite expansion of human population.

professore

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The science behind it is disputed, but on balance we probably do need to have less children.

There are parts of impoverished regions of the world which have less of an economic disincentive to have children. Sadly for them, an interim solution will probably be to encourage migration from poorer regions to Europe.

That will only plug the gap in our population pyramid for a limited amount of time, probably our lifetimes (for anyone 30 or younger).

There are too many variables to predict what will happen in 70 years time, or what the world will look like by then. For now, the solution to diminishing birth rates is increased migration.

I'd agree with all of this, and would add that mass migration from very different warlike honour cultures might not be the best idea.

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is why the endless growth model is totally unsustainable. At some point, some generation is going to have to face up to this, so it may as well be ours. The planet cannot sustain an indefinite expansion of human population.

I agree but we're not facing up to it. We are sleepwalking into it. In 50 years time there will be very few native Irish at this rate - maybe that's OK but we should think about it.

professore

professore wrote: »

I'd agree with all of this, and would add that mass migration from very different warlike honour cultures might not be the best idea.

"warlike honour culture"?

Are you talking about Arthurian chivalry? Please do elaborate.

work

professore wrote: »

work wrote: »

Ah the usual moron answers, what percentage of older people need young people to wipe their arses, its very condescendibg of you, I am sure most do fine on their own thank you!

Most old people eventually need help with day to day functioning. Many need full time care for years. I have personal experience of this. There are some who are fit and healthy into their 80s but these are a small minority.

Those pension ads of people swanning off to Spain or whatever aren't the case for many. Strokes, diabetes, alzheimers, arthritis etc puts a cramp in your style fairly lively.

Sorry but what is your point? The majority of OAPs function fine on their own and toward the end of life need help. I don't get your point?

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

I agree but we're not facing up to it. We are sleepwalking into it. In 50 years time there will be very few native Irish at this rate - maybe that's OK but we should think about it.

That's merely trying to "solve" the problem of an age imbalance by importing a young population from elsewhere. The unpleasant reality is that the only sustainable solution to the mess we've created as a species is for some generation to decide to have fewer offspring - and to put up with the consequences of that regarding economic and personal support in old age for the greater good of humanity.

In order to solve the population growth problem, some generation will have to suffer through an adjustment which, as you've pointed out, involves not having enough young people to support the old in that particular generation. I'm a bit of a nihilist when it comes to this stuff so personally I'd gladly suffer a reduced quality of life in old age if it's happening for the purpose of dramatically reducing the human population (and thereby having fewer young people around to look after and economically support my generation in its old age as a side effect) - it's the age old saying that old men should plant trees they know they'll never sit under.

Bottom line is, everyone's quality of life will plunge if we continue to expand and never contract the global population of humans. The contraction will most certainly involve one or two generations getting f*cked over by an imbalance. As far as I'm concerned, it should be ours - simply because we have the option to act in a self-sacrificial way and I wouldn't trust future generations to do that. We're already fairly f*cked in a lot of ways as a generation, so maybe our ultimate contribution to humanity will be a dramatic levelling off of the reproduction rate, so that future generations can enjoy a planet which is less overpopulated.

By not doing this, we're just kicking the can down the road for future generations to solve. One day, the planet will run out of one vital resource or another because there are too many of us competing for it, and that will be unimaginably unpleasant for whoever's around to live through it. We can choose to head it off in advance, which will be unpleasant for us, but at least it's something we get to choose for a reason as opposed to having it forced upon us like some future generation will if we don't do it.

One eyed Jack

work wrote: »

We are an infection on the earth and are destroying it.

work wrote: »

Ah the usual moron answers

Accurate description of your own post there really. What do you expect human civilisation should do? Regress to living in mud huts giving up all scientific, medical and technological advances we’ve made since the time when we lived in caves? Flintstones style?

Realistically, what do you imagine are the chances of that happening? What would be the point of passing on such a regressive philosophy to the next generation? We’re not destroying the earth, we’re adapting it to suit ourselves. The next generation will do the same thing, as generations of humanity have done long before you were ever even thought of.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Accurate description of your own post there really. What do you expect human civilisation should do? Regress to living in mud huts giving up all scientific, medical and technological advances we’ve made since the time when we lived in caves? Flintstones style?

Realistically, what do you imagine are the chances of that happening? What would be the point of passing on such a regressive philosophy to the next generation? We’re not destroying the earth, we’re adapting it to suit ourselves. The next generation will do the same thing, as generations of humanity have done long before you were ever even thought of.

How did you get from "we need to stop reproducing so much and allow the human population to massively decline" to "we should regress to the stone age"?

It's precisely so that future generations can continue to enjoy all of those incredible things we as a species have created, that we need to reduce the population going forward. None of them will matter much for quality of life if we reach a point in which there isn't enough space, food, water, etc to sustain a comfortable lifestyle for individuals, or when the environment has become too hostile to enjoy living in. All of these are problems which will arise in the event that we don't arrest the explosion in human population.

The simple maths of this is that the planet isn't getting any bigger, and therefore nor are the various fixed parameters in terms of what it can provide us with. In that scenario, an ever-increasing human population will eventually find itself having to divide those various pies into smaller and smaller pieces in order to survive. Food, water, land, fuel, raw materials, etc - the more these have to be divided up, the less each person gets. That should be obvious. I mean it's the same concept which leads to societies progressing from generally living in houses with private green space to generally living in high density apartment blocks - there stops being enough land for the former option to remain possible, and so the latter option is the only way forward.

Apply the same logic to resources such as food, water, electricity etc - which at the moment are not things we're capable of simply multiplying the way we're capable of multiplying our own population, without seriously f*cking up the environment in the process - and it becomes obvious why, over time, a higher human population must result in a reduced per capita quality of life.