Will the pill and equality kill off humans?
Poll: Will the pill and equality kill off humans?
Total Members Polled: 82
Discussion
For many years there were concerns about there being too many humans. However in recent years most developed countries have experienced shrinking populations (at least before immigration).
The pill has freed women from getting pregnant if they don’t want to and equality has allowed them to define themselves other than being mothers and given them financial freedom from men. This has also helped free men from the constraints of their previous role as breadwinner and father.
Prosperity and the growth of entertainment, sports, travel and other recreational activities means that people have options other than just being parents. People are weighing up the financial and time cost of having children…and deciding to have fewer children, or none at all.
To maintain a stable population each woman needs to have 2.1 children. However, as there are women who can’t or don’t want to have children, that means women who have children should be having at least three. Are there many doing so in developed countries? When I think of my social circle and family I can’t immediately think of anyone in my generation or younger who has more than two.
How are we going to deal with this as a species? Will we decline and fade away or will things be changed to get people breeding again at a sufficient level? Will that involve curtailing women’s rights or compulsion on men to father more children?
The pill has freed women from getting pregnant if they don’t want to and equality has allowed them to define themselves other than being mothers and given them financial freedom from men. This has also helped free men from the constraints of their previous role as breadwinner and father.
Prosperity and the growth of entertainment, sports, travel and other recreational activities means that people have options other than just being parents. People are weighing up the financial and time cost of having children…and deciding to have fewer children, or none at all.
To maintain a stable population each woman needs to have 2.1 children. However, as there are women who can’t or don’t want to have children, that means women who have children should be having at least three. Are there many doing so in developed countries? When I think of my social circle and family I can’t immediately think of anyone in my generation or younger who has more than two.
How are we going to deal with this as a species? Will we decline and fade away or will things be changed to get people breeding again at a sufficient level? Will that involve curtailing women’s rights or compulsion on men to father more children?
The population is still rising, so yes, women are having enough children if not necessarily in the countries that some people would like. Shifting demographics will definitely cause difficulties at times.
Nobody seems prepared to advocate for it, but the best thing for the planet would be a reduction in the human population. If we got down to a couple of billion then the pressure on resources would be easier to manage.
Nobody seems prepared to advocate for it, but the best thing for the planet would be a reduction in the human population. If we got down to a couple of billion then the pressure on resources would be easier to manage.
Alex Z said:
The population is still rising, so yes, women are having enough children if not necessarily in the countries that some people would like. Shifting demographics will definitely cause difficulties at times.
Nobody seems prepared to advocate for it, but the best thing for the planet would be a reduction in the human population. If we got down to a couple of billion then the pressure on resources would be easier to manage.
Population growth and decline is not instantaneous, because people live to 80 or so and you have to look at the population pyramid - there are a lot of middle aged people in many societies. They are not being replaced so when they die off there will be a steep decline. I was just reading in the Danish newspaper this morning that the current population of 5 million is forecast to fall to under 2 million by 2110 - just 90 years away. Nobody seems prepared to advocate for it, but the best thing for the planet would be a reduction in the human population. If we got down to a couple of billion then the pressure on resources would be easier to manage.
Skeptisk said:
Population growth and decline is not instantaneous, because people live to 80 or so and you have to look at the population pyramid - there are a lot of middle aged people in many societies. They are not being replaced so when they die off there will be a steep decline. I was just reading in the Danish newspaper this morning that the current population of 5 million is forecast to fall to under 2 million by 2110 - just 90 years away.
Europe population declines are a drop in the ocean.https://geographical.co.uk/news/dossier-what-does-...
Mazinbrum said:
Skeptisk said:
Population growth and decline is not instantaneous, because people live to 80 or so and you have to look at the population pyramid - there are a lot of middle aged people in many societies. They are not being replaced so when they die off there will be a steep decline. I was just reading in the Danish newspaper this morning that the current population of 5 million is forecast to fall to under 2 million by 2110 - just 90 years away.
Europe population declines are a drop in the ocean.https://geographical.co.uk/news/dossier-what-does-...
Cow Corner said:
Mazinbrum said:
Skeptisk said:
Population growth and decline is not instantaneous, because people live to 80 or so and you have to look at the population pyramid - there are a lot of middle aged people in many societies. They are not being replaced so when they die off there will be a steep decline. I was just reading in the Danish newspaper this morning that the current population of 5 million is forecast to fall to under 2 million by 2110 - just 90 years away.
Europe population declines are a drop in the ocean.https://geographical.co.uk/news/dossier-what-does-...
The current way/thinking is based on ponzi population growth, however the resources consumed are finite. The can will be kicked down the road for a couple more decades though before the sensible but tough decisions are made to move the tax burden more onto those who are draining it.
But to answer the subject title, no the pill will not kill of humans, it will just find a new equilibrium, which is probably a much smaller world wide population than today.
Mazinbrum said:
Skeptisk said:
Population growth and decline is not instantaneous, because people live to 80 or so and you have to look at the population pyramid - there are a lot of middle aged people in many societies. They are not being replaced so when they die off there will be a steep decline. I was just reading in the Danish newspaper this morning that the current population of 5 million is forecast to fall to under 2 million by 2110 - just 90 years away.
Europe population declines are a drop in the ocean.https://geographical.co.uk/news/dossier-what-does-...
China is already seeing a l population reduction and South Kora has seen its fertility rate fall to 0.7 when 2.1 is the break even rate.
Hans Rosling predicted the global population topping out at 11bn several decades ago. The latest data evidences 10.5bn and maybe even less if the trend continues.
Is this an issue. Temporarily yes. If the non working elderly outweigh the working population then the economy of that region becomes unsustainable.
While it'd be a bit overly negative to say there should be a "hopefully" option, no, stuff like this is unlikely to bump us off, it'll just change the balance of where the global population growth is occurring.
For equality and the pill
1 - not everyone does have them
2 - they have been "available" to us for decades already and the global population is still going up.
3 - frankly, if we need to keep half our society barefoot and pregnant in order to make Number Go Up, maybe it's better to give it up as a bad job.
For equality and the pill
1 - not everyone does have them
2 - they have been "available" to us for decades already and the global population is still going up.
3 - frankly, if we need to keep half our society barefoot and pregnant in order to make Number Go Up, maybe it's better to give it up as a bad job.
grumbledoak said:
Even if the pill and equality kill off the cultures that adopt them, that will just gift the planet to those that do not.
This basicallyReligious and conservative societies, that also usually do not give women full rights, will expand and more liberal societies will slowly die off.
If that does reach its natural conclusion then western-style liberal societies will be seen by history as an evolutionary dead end.
The human population will continue to grow and distribute itself across the habitable regions of the world.
In doing so, it will continue to consume the world's resources, polluting the world as it does.
It will develop technologies to offset this damage and, in doing so, will consume yet more resources, causing further damage, and so the doom cycle is established.
The ability of technology to compete with resource depletion and environmental damage may or may not be able to sustain a population of a given size.
Two things are certain, though: technology and the resources it consumes will continue to be unequally and geographically distributed; and the world will be a thoroughly unpleasant place while this end game plays out.
In doing so, it will continue to consume the world's resources, polluting the world as it does.
It will develop technologies to offset this damage and, in doing so, will consume yet more resources, causing further damage, and so the doom cycle is established.
The ability of technology to compete with resource depletion and environmental damage may or may not be able to sustain a population of a given size.
Two things are certain, though: technology and the resources it consumes will continue to be unequally and geographically distributed; and the world will be a thoroughly unpleasant place while this end game plays out.
motco said:
It might be argued that far from benefitting humanity, the medical profession has condemned it to a long and slow atrophy. Darwin has been confounded.
The European population explosion of the 19th century, and then growth elsewhere would almost certaintly not have been possible without advances in healthcare, particularly the smallpox vaccination. It is more social and economic change that has produced a declining birth-rate in any case.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff