No more babies

[Rum]

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

Interesting story (main news on the Beeb for much of today) about decreasing fertility rates and the impact it will have. Personally I see it as a chink of light.

Below is an extract from the middle of the article.



What will the impact be?

Without migration, countries will face ageing and shrinking populations.

Dr George Leeson, director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, says that does not have to be a bad thing, as long as the whole of society adjusts to the massive demographic change.

He told the BBC: "Demography impacts on every single aspect of our lives, just look out of your window at the people on the streets, the houses, the traffic, the consumption, it is all driven by demography.

"Everything we plan for is not just driven by the numbers in the population, but also the age structure and that is changing, so fundamentally we haven't got our heads around it."

He thinks workplaces are going to have to change and even the idea of retiring at 68, the current maximum in the UK, will be unsustainable.

The report, part of the Global Burden of Diseases analysis, says affected countries will need to consider increasing immigration, which can create its own problems, or introducing policies to encourage women to have more children, which often fail.

Report author Prof Murray argues: "On current trends there will be very few children and lots of people over the age of 65 and that's very difficult to sustain global society.

"Think of all the profound social and economic consequences of a society structured like that with more grandparents than grandchildren.

"I think Japan is very aware of this, they're facing declining populations, but I don't think it's hit many countries in the West, because low fertility has been compensated with migration.

"At a global level there is no migration solution," Prof Murray says.

But while the change may challenge societies, it may also have environmental benefits given the impact of our species.

[laklak]

We'll survive. Or not, and the rats will take over, Ma Nature don't give no fucks.

[Rum]

No, but I do. I’d like to think humans forged a progressive technologically magical future, perhaps even out in space. I’ve lost that idealistic fantasy over the last couple of decades and generally feel gloomy about our prospects. The good news from this report is that as women, in particular, get more education, they want and have fewer babies. The population of the planet may well stabilise. Or maybe not.

[JimC]

Well, I know for sure that Bron wants some grandchildren!

[laklak]

I don't want grandchildren, because the girls would expect me to be all gooey and gushy and take them to Disney World and other unbearable stuff, like keep them for the weekend. I cannot imagine anything worse than taking a little kid to Disney World, I've done that more than once. Never, ever, again. Unless it was take them to Disney World and then keep them for the weekend.

[pErvinalia]

How does the UK know how many people are in their country or how old they are? They haven't got a clue. In Netherlands we have tracking chips in our citizens so we know everything at every minute of every day.

[/dutchy]

[Rum]

[Tero]

Rum, we’ll take shifts. 8 hours lying in bed, 8 hours emptying other inmates’ bed pans. Rest of time off, night nurse on duty.

[Rum]

I think there is only one option. Enslave the under 40s.

[Brian Peacock]

That project is well under way Rum.

[laklak]

Buxom lasses to the seraglio, buff young men to the fields. From each according to their ability.

[Alan B]

No, but I do. I’d like to think humans forged a progressive technologically magical future, perhaps even out in space. I’ve lost that idealistic fantasy over the last couple of decades and generally feel gloomy about our prospects. The good news from this report is that as women, in particular, get more education, they want and have fewer babies. The population of the planet may well stabilise. Or maybe not.

The population will allegedly stabilize at about 11 billion towards the end of this century according to Hans Rosling. That is another 3.4 billion. So, that's all right, then. Or so some people seem to think, as though this extra 3.4 billion will have little or no effect...

This years birth/death figures show about 106 million births and 45 million deaths. About 134% more births than deaths. If the birth rate could be reduced to 'half' the death rate, it would take a couple of centuries or more to get back to the 1950 level (2.5 billion) - simplistically thinking and not taking into account the reducing birth/death rates due to a reducing population.

When humans manage wildlife on Reserves we institute a cull if the population becomes too unmanageable. Who is going to 'cull' us?

[Brian Peacock]

Rosling also demonstrated that in societies where economies remain well regulated and stable, where democratic processes and institutions are robust, where there is universal access to education and health care and a functioning social safety net, then population growth tends towards a below than 1:1 ratio.

[laklak]

Chicken, or egg?

[Alan B]

Rosling also demonstrated that in societies where economies remain well regulated and stable, where democratic processes and institutions are robust, where there is universal access to education and health care and a functioning social safety net, then population growth tends towards a below than 1:1 ratio.

Yes. But I would suspect, (I'm guessing here), that the countries that meet those conditions are in the minority. (link?)

Even so, if every country met those conditions, it would take an awful long time to reduce the world population to a level of equilibrium that would not cause damage to the biosphere. Do we actually have that amount of time before we irreversibly mess things up ?