In the 19th and early 20th century, “women and children first” was seen as a chivalric ideal. It was a moral code of conduct. The concept “was celebrated as a long-standing practice – a ‘tradition’, ‘law of human nature’ and ‘handed down in the race’.
Japan is leading the way in a crisis of population collapse. Japan had peak woman about 53 years ago in 1970. This was also about the time they had peak children.
During Japan’s first postwar baby boom (1947–49), there were 2.5 million births a year. In the second baby boom (1971–74), there were 2 million annual births.
Japan Could Be a Vulnerable Population by 2050
Japan’s population peaked in 2008. By the time Japan’s overall population peaked, the number of fertile women had fallen in half. The total fertility in 1974. The number of fertile women is dropping and the number of babies each is having is dropping. Japan is now at less than one-third of its peak baby years.
Humanity is on the Path to Being Endangered
A species is classified as endangered when its population has declined at least 70 percent and the cause of the decline is known. A species is also classified as endangered when its population has declined at least 50 percent and the cause of the decline is not known. I would argue that we do NOT have a clear understanding of the decline. Yes, we know women are choosing not to have children, but this is widespread to every moderately industrialized nation. Urbanization is also anti-baby and anti-family.
Is technology, development and wealth fatal to an intelligent species?
Some people are anti-human. They say less humans is good for the planet. In a healthy civilization such views would be outliers and at the fringe.
The idea of overpopulation is wrong. The electrification of cars and trucks combined with mass solar and batteries will eliminate most fossil fuel usage.
World food production has been increasing at 1.7% per year.
There is 30% food wastage which countries like France reduce to 10% with simple policies. We can triple farm yields with high productivity seeds that have been tested in pilot fields already. Greenhouses can increase food production per acre by 10 times. China is completing 4 million hectares of greenhouses. Greenhouses also reduce water usage by 10 times.
So all of the concerns about climate, energy and overpopulation are wrong. We can easily support 100 billion people on Earth in a very responsible way. We can also restore fish levels and reforest the planet.
Fish levels are down because we killed 98% of the whales. This broke the iron cycle from deep water to the surface. Whales are not there to poop and create algae blooms to feed the fish. trillions of dollars to work on climate fixes. All of this money did not succeed in stopping the increase in annual emissions let alone sequester 100 years of emissions. The trees and algae have already been sequestering trillions of tons and we just need to increase it by 20%. Before human civilization Earth had about 5.6 trillion trees. Yes, there are cities in many areas and farms, but we can densify the cities and farms to use 10-30% less space.
As a species, we have to get serious about saving the women and future children. We need to get serious about fixing the problems. The supposed big problems like climate change and electrifying transportation are all solvable.
Is Apathy the Answer to the Fermi Paradox? The Fermi Paradox is why are there no widespread aliens all over the universe.
We definitely do NOT know how to get human populations back to replacement or above. The best efforts of Japan and Europe spending hundreds of billions of dollars is to get fertility rates up about 20% for a decade or so. This is mostly pull forward births. The government pays the people and they have the baby they were already planning on five years earlier.
If Japan’s population falls below 100 million by 2050 (which it will based upon current projections), then IF Japanese people were a species then they would be classified as vulnerable. Japan’s population could halve before 2100 which would make them endangered.
Countries like South Korea that have a total fertility rate of 0.78 would end up with population dropping to 70-80% below current levels by 2100. This would put those countries into the critically endangered category.
For Japan, to stabilize its population, they will need a baby boom for decade or two where they go to a total fertility rate of 2.5 to 3.0 and then hold 2.1 to 2.2 fertility rate.
Europe had peak female 40 years ago and Europe’s overall population peaked about four years ago.
There is about a 40 year lag from peak female and peak baby and peak population. Asia as whole may have hit peak female 12 years ago.
The future Asian numbers are likely much worse than the UN projections. China has been at total fertility rate of 1.18 for the past three years which is 0.3 below UN population division expectations. India is also 0.2 TFR below expectations. The whole world could end up 500 million to 1 billion people below the mid UN forecast. The large errors on China and India could mean the world is already at below replacement rate of 2.1. The UN had been expecting to hold TFR 2.2 for a 2-4 decades.
The whole world may have hit peak female 8 years ago.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Maybe one of the first things to do would be to find some way to limit smartphones and similar devices to the people who need them for earning money, and taking care of Instagram. 🙂 Second, would need to be taking care of the banking system, and cutting their margins for mortgage credit. Some decades ago, in my country buing a flat didn’t require being indebyted for life. Some, civilisation collapse would be in necessary, but that would be rather ugly.
Human population decline is probably our collective unconscious response to what we have inflicted upon nature and wild life. It is a good thing. Let nature take its course. It is better than having nuclear war over scarce land and water resources etc as sea levels rise.
Once things stablize, we as humans will respond differently.
We will likely to merge into one human race due to this population decline.
“It is a good thing.” Interesting. Where do you get your definition of “good?” Is it just what you think? If so then you’ll have to accept whatever I define as good too. Or is there somehow else you are getting your idea of “good?” I don’t think I care for your definition. Very sanctimonious and arrogant.
We do not know if things will stabilize. In the past, the only means of births revitalisation was some conquest by less developed tribes.
For the first time in history more people live in cities than in rural areas
Out in the country, children are an economic necessity (essentially free labor).
In the city, children are an expensive hobby.
Hence fewer children.
What’s the entry picture about (explained for global audience)?
~”a Victorian illustration of London in the Great Plague of 1664″ The Guardian
What’s the meaning for other continents (emigration&immigration? then&today)?
(Is Great Britain a suitable representation for a diverse(?) Europe? What country (illustration) would represent Asia or World?)
I have a dark theory. Misogyny, rape, and patriarchy were the only reasons we ever had a positive birth rate. I’m pretty leftist so try not to cancel me too fast. I still have a hunch this is the case. Once we removed these from our society birth rates fall. Women’s education is largely responsible. Countries that still have these issues have positive birth rates. Despite poor resources and abject poverty they make babies. Religion protects male predators. Male predators have become non-breeding incels and criminals in modern society. We should ask chat gpt for a solution.
Rather to focus on the fact that – A free, educated, well paid woman, able to abide by her common sense and intuition, will often not feel right, to bring another person into a world that is still so unbalanced, unconstructive, socially and environmentally unhealthy.
A better point that yet needs to be taken to heart if we want to reverse course.
Why are there so many modern useful idiots who promote misanthropic ideologies their masters the “ROYALS” trained them to believe?
Don’t they get the rules of this dangerous game they choose to play without declaring they are playing THE ART OF WAR with ANATOL RAPOPORT GAME THEORY APPLIED?
Every day more people see the liars preaching climate change strategies to the world.
“Other people” or should we call them the unindoctrinated peasant class are not stupid they are more civilized people who prefer to live in peace minding their own business.
Its funny to watch so many “intellectuals” who think they will have a special place reserved for them in this new world order Bahai & gender obsessed allies at the UN worked tirelessly to create because they fail to see the true nature of this game and their own position as pawns fighting on the front lines to serve interests of paranoid wealthy inbred people that never cared about any of the expendible pawns who believe they are special chosen ones.
Signs are very clear about how this will end. Prince climate change couldn’t even walk on stage at COP26 without losing his footing right before he told the world’s idiots who identified as leaders we need to be on a war like footing.
A few months later Abdul Bahas temple burned to the ground in a raging inferno that symbolized what the world instigators should expect for their own future.
No one will ask anyone how they feel about climate change, feminist whatever, skin color, gender or what you like to do when naked to get off sexually when they take everyone out because the liars they work for never cared about any of them & they won’t display anymore rainbow flags in their new world.
EQUALITY MEANS EQUALITY FOR ALL this time at the end of this epic battle of global never ending wars.
No participation awards for subversion actors that are also obsolete.
If they are honest they will acknowledge what I say is true. If they refuse to accept the equality they fight for today when it comes to them that will just prove they are so talented at practicing the art of the con they managed to con themselves into believing what they do is in their best interests.
Anyone repeating the same talking points all of the other modern useful idiots repeat they are showing the world they are non critically thinking morons who don’t understand king climate change and friends never ever cared about any of them.
Are they really that stupid or do they feel trapped like they were put in check mate in 2020 or before?
No options for those people who fear rejection from the cult and from all other people.
If they say anything cult will destroy them and the normal peaceful peasants will also reject them.
Their only hope is stand firmly behind glass walls that everyone who looks can see through …… the glass walls sitting unsecured on extremely fragile foundation that is crumbling before their very eyes.
Must be terrifying to be a modern useful idiot in this day and age.
Only solution to world problems is for everyone to identify as TRANSROYAL.
Transroyalists don’t pay taxes including inheritance tax so this is a good strategy to secure wealth peasants created otherwise the modern useful idiots serving king climate change will steal everything from everyone just like always.
This is the best strategy because the people who currently identify as “royals” are worlds most powerful advocates promoting equality for all in the future.
We assume they don’t plan on stepping down from their elevated position so all of us must rise to their level to experience true equity they promised.
Maybe the world wouldn’t be so messed up if we didn’t allow inbred unattractive families have so much power.
England’s queens must have been jealous when they noticed men staring at the beautiful woman because they were the HMFIC that should get all attention all the time. Knowing they were very unlikely to produce desirable offspring they commanded tyrannical orders to make everyone else uglier than the inbreds who birth children from “royal” vaginas.
Maybe the United Nations will finally fix the global pandemic of orgasmic inequity that billions of marginalized woman & whatever suffer from.
UN can set up new division to monitor this very real problem in real time. Every time only one person engaged in sexual activities experiences orgasm they can immediately alert the Bahai Internaional House of justice of the crime that was committed.
BIJ can fine first time offenders then lock repeat offenders in a cage for a while and then if they still don’t get it or learn how to ensure their sexual partners experience same pleasure every time they engage in sexual activities they can order UN BUTCHERS to REMOVE ALL SEXUAL ORGANS from offender to ensure they don’t victimize anyone else in the future.
Sounds reasonable right?
Oh and how can anyone support King climate change or take anything he said seriously when his own children showed the entire world they don’t believe anything he said?
Why didn’t WILL & KATE switch to anal only to be safe from unwanted pregnancy? The world can’t sustain all of us so why would they disrespect Charles lifetime of work by not aborting the last planet killer conceived when will ejaculated in a vagina on a person that self identifies as royal?
Hypocrisy thick
Repeaters are pawns that will get the equity they worked for in the end.
What the hell did I just read? You injecting heroine into your eyeballs?
Very interesting! You might be onto something there.
The biggest part of it is infant mortality and needing kids to work the farms. If 20-50% of kids die before the age of five, then families need to have 6-8 kids to be certain of having 2-4 live until they can reproduce. If people are working farms, then kids are needed as labor.
“So all of the concerns about climate, energy and overpopulation are wrong. We can easily support 100 billion people on Earth in a very responsible way. We can also restore fish levels and reforest the planet.”
And you thought my statement about Teslabots saving us was too optimistic????
ELDERLY WOMEN HAVE GIVEN BIRTH AS SURROGATES.
COMPLETION OF GESTATION WITHOUT A CORPUS LUTEUM WITH HORMONAL SUPPORT IS POSSIBLE.NORMAL CHILDREN HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.
HAS ANYONE STUDIED HUMAN GESTATION IN BOVINE UTERI?
ANIMALS HAVE BEEN CLONED.
WHO IS TO SAY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN PRIMATES?
“Having an extra child doesn’t mean as much if one of your children becomes an atheist. ” Quite the contrary , I think religion is one of the reasons we are at this point. It’s not secular culture. Many Gen X and Z have been completely alienated by child molesting priests and screaming holy rollers, and why shouldn’t they be? Real health care, child support, and multi-generation support can all help unify families and foster a much better environment for raising children. Imposing religion on basic needs is unnecessary and unAmerican in my opinion.
You are simply wrong. Faithful religious people from traditional historic religions are simply more likely to have children. Modern replacement religions like communistic environmentalism and religious extremest liberal governmental attempts to control child rearing and replace education with indoctrination and anti-human curriculum are what result in reduced fertility.
There are currently 100x more people on Earth than can be supported sustainably. The natural ecosystem is collapsing– and the talk is about economic ruin? Come on. Wake up. But perhaps if you’re making a living just repackaging others’ ideas and serving them up… you might start believing in the BS that economists keep serving up. Growth is going to stop, the population is going to collapse, and there will be a lot of miserable people. We are like someone who saved up the maximum into their 401k for 200 million years and then decided to retire, and have a huge party, burning through all the money in 200 years. Most people will not survive what is coming.
100x more?
Where are you getting this figure?
A dark and stinky place, I expect. 1/100 of the current world population would be 80 million; The last time the human population was that small was between 500 and 1000 BC.
Strange, if anything larger is unsustainable, that the crash didn’t happen some time in the past 3500 years…
Demographics can be accurately predicted a good distance into the future. But technologic progress will have the potential to affect the outcomes. For example, the relatively small number of workers needed to support retirees may be largely irrelevant when each retiree lives in a 3D-printed home, has multiple servant robots, are seen by medical AI, etc. Robotic daycare, AI assisted education, cheaper housing, food, etc could change people’s calculus on how expensive children are. Also, artificial wombs could allow people to have the number of children that they want. The future cannot be accurately predicted by the past or present.
In the US has anyone considered federally subsidised childcare and a 4 day week – rather than more tax breaks for the super rich?
Every conceivable method of promoting fertility in ither nations has seen limited results.
Every country that’s tried promoting fertility has tried the interventions at about 5-10% of the level necessary to work. That’s what the research actually says: The interventions work, but the dose is way too small to have the desired scale of effect.
A study conducted in over 50 countries indicates that every 1% of GDP allocated to increasing the fertility rate of women increases this rate by only +0.2%. Money isn’t the problem.
Where is this study? None of the countries spending on increasing fertility have come close to restoring replacement levels
https://ifstudies.org/blog/pro-natal-policies-work-but-they-come-with-a-hefty-price-tag
It’s true that none of them have come close to achieving enough boost in fertility, but they have had enough of an effect to estimate of the financial elasticity.
“At the extreme, we can calculate how large of a program would be necessary to lift American birth rates to replacement-rate around 2.07 children born per woman. In 2020, the total fertility rate is probably around 1.71 children per woman. Thus, to reach 2.07, we would need a 21% increase in birth rates. To accomplish this, we would need the present value of child benefits to increase by somewhere between 52% and 400% of household income. For the median woman, this would mean providing a child benefit for the first 18 years of a child’s life worth approximately $5,300 per year in addition to currently-provided benefits, with the range running from $2,800 more per year to $23,000 more per year.”
Pricey, but I bet even that wouldn’t have a sustained effect. After all, we keep coming back to the fact that we have more wealth per person, free schooling, medical care, residential space per person, etc than we did 100 years ago, and yet we still don’t have children.
People judge their wealth/living quality in relation to others. Perceiving yourself as below a minimum living standard causes low fertility. Subsidies can make you feel like you’ve climbed an economic rung, until our perceptions renormalize and we realize we’re still in the same position, relative to everyone else.
So even increasing productivity from technology and GDP growth can’t do it, unless we use AI to create communism or restructure the media.
The study actually said that, that it wasn’t obvious the effect was sustained, a lot of it could be people just moving up planned births, not having more children total.
Though, planning to have a kid at some point in the future often results in not having a kid, as biology intervenes. For instance, after our first child, I ended up sterilized by cancer treatment. We had been waiting a bit before our second child, to space them out a little. So much for that… So moving up planned children has the secondary effect of increasing children.
Though even there, financial aid can help; We still could have had another child with sufficient (Unpleasant on my part!) medical intervention, once I was sure I was going to continue to be around. We just couldn’t afford it.
The key here isn’t general subsidies, it’s subsidies specifically directed at alleviating the loss of living standard consequent to having a child.
Free pregnancy care, including delivery, free IVF for the infertile, subsidized surrogate mothers, sufficient tax incentives that a woman can skip having a career and be a stay at home mom without taking a financial hit. That’s the sort of thing we’re talking about.
It’s all very fraught, though, because the people most responsive to the incentives are the people we least want to encourage having kids: The unemployable poor.
Don’t know about you, but this kind of approach might convince me:
1. Tax the super rich to reduce perceptions of never having enough and needing more work to get ahead. 2. Reduce work days to 4 for those with kids (create time for babies, parenting)
3. Cancel private schooling (enhance teacher salary) and provide free university again (Why save to pay for this damn expensive school to get my kids ahead only to have them reach equity rules in the workplace? )
4. Get the young onto the housing ladder out of the family home asap, you’re not an adult having a family when with Mum and Dad (fix zoning laws and build council provided housing, allocate based on job location)
5. Child care cost support for in work parents. Pays related to house location and provider)
As commented a lot above, would cost more than most are currently prepared to spend.
I describe a global problem that is already been ignored for decades and will wrecking the global economy. So the response is to roll out a wish list of national issues.
Don’t we already provide child care at about 2x that amount between ages 6 and 18? I.e. school?
We’re talking about how much additional incentive is required.
A UBI of 1000$ per kid would do it I bet.
Sounds like we need to allocate 10% of GDP via UBI.
politically we are sooooooo far from that. demographic collapse is much more likely.
Energy and CO2 is hardly the problem with overpopulation.
I would say it’s the fact that we are causing a mass extinction of species to the tune of many thousands every year according to estimations. These will never come back and the extinction will erode the ecosystems in an accelerating way. At some point, the food chains collapse and higher life forms die out.
It has happened at least 5 times before and we are in the middle of the sixth.
Our tiny brains seem incapable of reacting to events longer than months so we just run full steam ahead. Good luck with that!
“These will never come back”
If we have their DNA(known species) or will find their DNA(unknown species), we can ‘resurrect’ most, if not all of them, in the future.
I get your point, but we already have tech, to solve this particular problem
Not at scale or in the timeframe needed. And in fact not really at all. You need more than the DNA sequence, you need the eggs, womb and raising and most of all, the habitat for them to thrive in!
Central banking and governments printing money is slavery – it takes it’s value from the value of the total supply – directly from people’s wallets. This affects the poor – preventing people from saving and building.
The reason populations are declining is that people have no hope. They have no hope because their wealth is being stolen from them and they have been made slaves whether they know it or not.
You guys are wasting your time on this issue. Declining populations are, in part, due to the social economic policies of the countries experiencing them. The necessary but not sufficient criteria for people to have kids is the have the decentralized growth oriented economy driven mainly by small to medium sized business like we had in the 1980’s coupled with Affordable Family Formation (Steve Sailer), again what we had in the 1980’s. Affordable family formation includes cost effective housing, health care, and education. We have none of these today.
As for the East Asian countries, they have policies that are even worse. The Japanese economy nickel and dimes you every time you do something or even turn around. This effect is enormously amplified for those who have kids. Couple this with a stagnat economy and no wonder no one in Japan wants to have kids.
South Korea is even worse. They have a policy that is optimized to reduce their birth rate to zero over time. Most companies and government entities have a mandatory retirement at age 50. This means you need enough money saved up by age 50 to be financially independent or at least enough to retire somewhere like South East Asia. The best way to accomplish this is, naturally, to cut overhead. The biggest overhead to cut is having a family.
I don’t know that the situation is in China. But I’m certain it is just as bad for having kids as Japan and S. Korea. Whatever the “gotcha” policy in each of these countries that impedes having kids, too many players in these countries have a stake in keeping it going. That is why these policies will never change and birth rates will continue to decline.
So much wrong here, but I’ll just comment on a few things:
– South Korea has a replacement rate of .78 per couple (does this include 2 men or 2 women too? This is becoming more acceptable in Western societies too). A woman from Niger will have an average of 6 children. Where would you rather live? Would it make a difference if you were female?
– As people urbanize and as social safety nets become more robust and dependable, people stop having children. Children in dense, urban, advanced cities are an economic and psychological stress and burden. Life is more fun and fulfilling without them. There is so much to do and explore! Especially when you are young and fertile. The solution is not to go backwards and withdraw all these good outcomes, but to…
1. Develop woman-free gestation. I’ve linked to my article a coule of times about that already, but here is the video I referred to within it, already a few years out-of-date: https://youtu.be/dt7twXzNEsQ and another one from SciShow just 2 years ago: https://youtu.be/N4l5Li_xmnk. This will come and be part of “Trans rights” and fertility treatments – which includes older women too. Don’t fight the last war.
2. Speaking of wars, this – plus accidents, disease, crime – is where the boys go to die. Humans have always produced more boys than girls. If you include fertilized embryos that never get born, it’s about 110 males to females. The lack of a second X chromosome and the very little on the Y chromosome makes males particularly vulnerable. The behavior and expectations of males increases that even more. Woman used to balance this out by dying in childbirth, but don’t anymore, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. After about 85, there are 2X more females than males, but they are fragile. We need to curb these bad things happening to males too. Keeping men alive would increase family size because females could then afford to not work and to have more children – which most say they want but cannot afford, alone.
3. We really need to reward productive work, not just rent-seeking and monopolies. The vastly greater wealth allowed to rent-seeking discourages other parts of society from having children. A single, mostly male, part of a couple could support a family with 2-4 kids in the 1960s, but this is almost impossible now with the wife working which means she will be too stressed and overburdened to want (more) children. The Simpsons would be impossible today, when it was possible when it came out over a quarter century ago. Measuring wealth by household has hidden the loss of wealth by individual. There are lots of ways to do this; an article reviewing a book by an economist shows even a 0.25% tax on financial transactions could replace every other tax, eliminate poverty and homelessness too. Any financial transactions that can’t profit with a 0.25% tax are almost certainly algorithmic and useless social activities and should be discouraged through taxation anyway. There are several other options too.
This screed is already too long, but there are many other options to be tried.
We won’t decrease populations forever. A balance of reproduction and lifestyle will be achieved when rewards to labor exceed the cost of children, as they did after the Black Death or any other population reduction. Society is unbalanced.
Women free gestation machines might technically work but there would need to be 150 million of them. I will consider this an option after there more babies from such machines than from surrogates.
And they’d need to be tested now, to be approved in 10 years. They aren’t, and probably won’t be for several years, up to a decade or more. 20 lost years is a whole generation.
Then their use would have to ramp up until there are enough for anyone wanting to use that option, which is also a long process.
That means in 30 years perhaps, they might be common enough to be a relevant statistic. In a world much worse off than we are today.
By the time babies are made artificially at scale it will be because AI chose to do it and we will have been long gone as the dominant life form.
The world is over populated at 8 billion people. Too many women causes the problem. 3 billion people would be nice. 1 billion would be better.
How is it overpopulated? Explain
One could say that any level of human population that causes an increasing risk of extinction for the rest of this planet’s inhabitants is too much.
If we had worked out how to live with little impact on a global level this might be different but we haven’t. Yet at least.
The ideal population of the solar system is in the trillions. UBI of 1 million per kid is the solution. 90% taxation of wealth is the funding mechanism. AI labor is the enabling technology.
The human population of the world is not at risk of substantial population decline through 2100. Some national populations falling by half does NOT mean our species is endangered.
If most predators die off in an area, the local deer population might boom – then the predators come back (or disease or starvation hit) and the deer population shrinks; but deer as a species are not endangered.
Some nations will see a population decline, but maybe they’ve grown beyond their sustainable population level. Maybe the developed world population level of 1960 was about right, and now we’re falling back toward that. Once we undershoot that, maybe we’ll start growing again.
Or maybe we’ll figure out ways to make cities more child-friendly for larger families, so populations stop shrinking.
The real issue isn’t human extinction, I agree that’s not likely.
The real issue is cultural extinction, our civilization dying.
We don’t want to go back to medieval levels, and have to build back with all the easy to get at ore already mined. We need to keep our present level of civilization and build from there.
And THAT is what the birth dearth threatens.
Please explain why a birth dearth will force us back into the Middle Ages. The bubonic plague led to nearly the death of half of Europe, but led to better worker wages and ending of the feudal system. With robots and AI set to do more of our labor, fewer people will be required. Modern green technology and science won’t be lost, but instead enhanced.
You are making a bunch of unsupported claims. In England, more than 1300 villages were deserted between 1350 and 1500. Wages of laborers were high, but the rise in nominal wages after the Black Death was swamped by inflation and so real wages fell. Real wages fell. There is choice with robots and AI, we have to make the systems enhance the lives of people and not just enhance green tech or science. Tech and science must help people and their lives. A green planet is for people. A green planet without people is meaningless.
depends on if you consider AI to be “people”
Irrelevant because the birth rates compensated.
That wasnt a population decline FROM low birth rates.
Assuming by going back to medieval times you mean a decline in our technological capabilities – do you actually see any evidence of that happening?
Even in the nations that are experiencing the fastest demographic collapse?
Or in the US with our high immigration rate that has made up for our low total fertility rate? I see very little cultural risk to the US from immigrants.
It’s not the legal immigration that causes most of the cultural risk, that’s mostly from developed countries, or where it’s from 3rd world countries the people immigrating are outliers in terms of education and attainment.
It’s the illegal immigration that causes the cultural damage.
The problem with the legal immigration is that it’s not in any way a solution, all it does is ameliorate the problem here while making it worse elsewhere.
How do you manage cultural risk?
7 Key Steps to Implementing a Risk Culture
Evaluate the Current Culture. Before implementing a risk culture, the risk team must evaluate the current culture. …
Plan a Cultural Change. …
Gain Top Management Support. …
Set Expectations. …
Prioritize Risk Management. …
Provide Training and Development. …
Develop Communication.
Becoming a father represents a whole host of risks that are only becoming more apparent. In this state(NC) you can get locked up for being a noncustodial parent, and going broke. Lose your job, and go through your savings, then get dragged into “family court”. Can’t beg, borrow, or steal money for the state? Welcome to prison for non-support.
Who says there is no more debtor’s prison?
Economic stress is thought to underlie much of the decline in parenting. A UBI would probably do the trick. But no country has tried it at large enough scale to know.
If this is true, the future belongs to the religious fundamentalists, just by showing up.
The current secular world will fade away by attrition, and even be remembered as a nightmarish age of debauchery, an example for future generations, probably a religious parable.
Sorry for the liberals, we had a good ride. But the realities of biology, sex and aging are inescapable.
What I’ve been saying and, white Christian, I am not particularly religious.
But this is very true- liberals’ idealogical views will meet a biological dead end.
I agree with your statement but. I think that is only due to external religious pressures and society’s civil engineering to meet those or provide for in a economic or financial gain.
Strictly speaking in the aspect that religion provides a network of support could also be backed by a civil network of support to assist the further growth of humanity in the aspect of relieving the pressures of raising a child in this society.
They’re also the multiple external factors of the dangers of exposing a child to the current society or environment that they may have to navigate.
The uncertainty of the future is definitely in the air currently so if financially, economically and the state of the political atmosphere on a global level while riding the tail end of a pandemic raising children in and of itself is just a very difficult task.
Giving the fact that inflation is on the rise, access to social mobility is steadily decreasing. The lack of an answer for inflation or the resolution of the inflation on a global level although productivity has increased.
Further reinforces the dystopian aspect or the transfer of wealth.
It is interesting the level of difficulty that it takes to give birth to a child in this current economic and technical era, feed a child raise a child educate and provide for a future further compounds the adverse effects of wanting to create a family in this current environment.
Research the mortality rates of women dying during the process of pregnancy or the difficulties of birth and the required care or lack of access to that care that the mother needs to ensure that the family can survive the transition.
Even in developed Nations the mortality rate is quite high.
As many people have said there is no one clear answer as to why the decline of humanity is on the rise.
But there are several glaring issues that there are answers to. Governments or humanity or society just needs to be willing to find an implement a realistic solution.
That is sustainable and accessible for all.
with a feeling this (“Sorry for the liberals”) being shortsighted, i would ask about how to protect intelligent people from ‘masses’ and conformant (thus possibly followed by inappropriate actions because of wrong premises) systems&authorities(?)
if non-liberals act like there’s no need for creativity and intelligence within all population, only domination&government, that’s on a path forward to decline in cultural progress(?) (and just before that point, AI looses it’s progressive database and stagnates(?) )
i feel, i should hurry with congratulations(?) to fundamentalist conservative ‘domination’ before ‘the end of time’ (wrong(?))
Part of the problem here is that the secular liberals keep poaching the children of the religious fundamentalists. Having an extra child doesn’t mean as much if one of your children becomes an atheist.
I maintain once again that TV and other media is the problem. The kids are being socialized by entities outside of their house/community/religion.
One could also point to public school, housing discrimination laws (religious-cultural groups can no longer build homogenous communities), and an economic system that incentivizes moving from a home community for work/education, making it hard for religious groups to retain their children. But fertility is dropping fast even in countries with homogenous religious populations, so mostly I blame our globalized media culture and the inexorable viewership logic that shapes it.
But I do grant that some groups are more capable of resisting media than others.
“We can easily support 100 billion people on Earth in a very responsible way.”
, means taking accumulation of wealth and society’s priorities into consideration, what’s also connected to religion and cultural agreements, in one way or the other(?)
That view is different comparing Europe and Asia(?)
Oh what a shame we are bringing people out of the stone age! Kicking and screaming many of them. Ignorance I guess can really be bliss.
Very likely if technology stays stagnant, but before that happens AI will likely dominate in terms of population. AI are the new secular children of mankind.
This kind of thing insinuates a “Children of Men” story scenario (if I recall the title of the novel/movie correctly). I’m not sure it’s going to happen, though.
BUT: apathy as an answer to the Fermi Paradox isn’t something I’d ever considered. Very interesting. I could see it.
I think it’s possible to put women and children first and to save the planet from certain climate doom (no matter the cause). Even through Earth is slated for eventual unstoppable Climate Doom (why did I capitalize it? Ha!), unless we advance to the point where we could save it, and would feel like doing so.
But, to the point of this, I think we would certainly– in a drawdown of births scenario– ensure women and children are looked after. That should always be the case, honestly [in my opinion].
We should really begin looking more into ectogenesis technology, just in case.
China with a TFR of anything above 1 is nonsense. Even after they removed OCP, birth rates continued to plummet