Last year more deaths than births were registered in the UK for the first time since 1976.
In total, just over 683,000 births were registered compared with nearly 690,000 deaths.
This was only the second time deaths have outnumbered births since the late 1890s.
The coronavirus epidemic led to a sharp rise in deaths last year but birth rates have also been falling for the last decade.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57600757
I came across this article on the BBC today, although the pandemic has severely affected birth rates in the UK (who'd want to get jiggy in a pandemic?!) it isn't the sole reason for reproduction declining.
What do people think is the reason for this? Maybe Brexit driving away immigrants from the country, or the fact we have so many poor people and high unemployment that they can’t afford children at the moment? Quite interesting.
Population shrinking
posted on 29/6/21
The comment about boomers and climate change is untrue. Another example of lumping people together.
posted on 29/6/21
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
The comment about boomers and climate change is untrue. Another example of lumping people together.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I've told Connie that many times.
posted on 29/6/21
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 3 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Vorsprung durch Tuchel (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
Does this actually worry anyone? We can’t escape from the fact that less humans means less impact on the planet which is obviously a good thing overall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m surprised there is not more debate and discussion on couples having several children. These days when there is so much conversation around taking personal responsibility for climate change by taking the smallest, most rudimentary changes to your lifestyle eg. Meatless Monday’s, I think there should at least be dialogue around how many children couples should have from a climate change perspective. That one decision to have one less child than planned would have a massive impact on consumption of fossil fuels, more so than probably any decision to not eat meat, or use your car less etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change will always be tossed aside as 'scaremongering' by boomers, it's an issue that's deeply worrying for the younger generation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My missus would prefer to go meatless for months on end
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think she tells you that while dining out on big beefy sausages every day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She holiday's in Israel and said they had a fine skinless pork.
posted on 29/6/21
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Sharteta (U19684)
posted 22 minutes ago
It's a start but really a global population down to the millions rather than billions is the only way the natural ecosystems will even have a chance to survive or recover
A pipe dream obviously, instead business and governments will do all they can to keep the worlds Ponzi based, destructive economies going
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is factually untrue. The technologies are available to enable humans to have a net neutral impact on the environment, and if we embrace those technologies and the necessary behavioural changes, we can sustain high (and higher) levels of population without destroying the environment. Let's also remember that a hugely disproportionate % of environmental degradation is driven by a relatively small portion of the world population, i.e. by the consumption patterns of us lot in the richer parts of the world.
If we commit to a circular economy, low carbon technologies and energy supplies and are willing to drastically reduce our meat consumption, the picture looks much rosier for the planet and the human race. If we insist on carrying on as we are, and if the emerging middle class across developing countries adopts European/North American consumption habits, then we're in big trouble. The fantasy of solving the world's problems by decimating the population relies on the assumption that we don't change the status quo. I guess it's only fair if those advocating this population reduction path volunteer to be first in line for the measures that deliver it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually untrue and an incredibly dangerous myth/misunderstanding that will likely only seal our fate and that of many other speicies.
You can make an argument that humans could limit their impact on the climate with current technology but it's simply nonsense to pretend that ecosystems could be sustained at a decent level.
Also your last line is expected and moronic from someone so clearly devoid of any understanding of the matter beyond the flimsy climate angle
Massively less breeding is the answer, not early termination of already living people.
posted on 29/6/21
comment by Sharteta (U19684)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Sharteta (U19684)
posted 22 minutes ago
It's a start but really a global population down to the millions rather than billions is the only way the natural ecosystems will even have a chance to survive or recover
A pipe dream obviously, instead business and governments will do all they can to keep the worlds Ponzi based, destructive economies going
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is factually untrue. The technologies are available to enable humans to have a net neutral impact on the environment, and if we embrace those technologies and the necessary behavioural changes, we can sustain high (and higher) levels of population without destroying the environment. Let's also remember that a hugely disproportionate % of environmental degradation is driven by a relatively small portion of the world population, i.e. by the consumption patterns of us lot in the richer parts of the world.
If we commit to a circular economy, low carbon technologies and energy supplies and are willing to drastically reduce our meat consumption, the picture looks much rosier for the planet and the human race. If we insist on carrying on as we are, and if the emerging middle class across developing countries adopts European/North American consumption habits, then we're in big trouble. The fantasy of solving the world's problems by decimating the population relies on the assumption that we don't change the status quo. I guess it's only fair if those advocating this population reduction path volunteer to be first in line for the measures that deliver it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually untrue and an incredibly dangerous myth/misunderstanding that will likely only seal our fate and that of many other speicies.
You can make an argument that humans could limit their impact on the climate with current technology but it's simply nonsense to pretend that ecosystems could be sustained at a decent level.
Also your last line is expected and moronic from someone so clearly devoid of any understanding of the matter beyond the flimsy climate angle
Massively less breeding is the answer, not early termination of already living people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet RRs argument, well put, seems so much more persuasive than your abusive rant.
posted on 29/6/21
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Sharteta (U19684)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Sharteta (U19684)
posted 22 minutes ago
It's a start but really a global population down to the millions rather than billions is the only way the natural ecosystems will even have a chance to survive or recover
A pipe dream obviously, instead business and governments will do all they can to keep the worlds Ponzi based, destructive economies going
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is factually untrue. The technologies are available to enable humans to have a net neutral impact on the environment, and if we embrace those technologies and the necessary behavioural changes, we can sustain high (and higher) levels of population without destroying the environment. Let's also remember that a hugely disproportionate % of environmental degradation is driven by a relatively small portion of the world population, i.e. by the consumption patterns of us lot in the richer parts of the world.
If we commit to a circular economy, low carbon technologies and energy supplies and are willing to drastically reduce our meat consumption, the picture looks much rosier for the planet and the human race. If we insist on carrying on as we are, and if the emerging middle class across developing countries adopts European/North American consumption habits, then we're in big trouble. The fantasy of solving the world's problems by decimating the population relies on the assumption that we don't change the status quo. I guess it's only fair if those advocating this population reduction path volunteer to be first in line for the measures that deliver it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually untrue and an incredibly dangerous myth/misunderstanding that will likely only seal our fate and that of many other speicies.
You can make an argument that humans could limit their impact on the climate with current technology but it's simply nonsense to pretend that ecosystems could be sustained at a decent level.
Also your last line is expected and moronic from someone so clearly devoid of any understanding of the matter beyond the flimsy climate angle
Massively less breeding is the answer, not early termination of already living people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet RRs argument, well put, seems so much more persuasive than your abusive rant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the danger I guess. Happens a lot on the internet
posted on 30/6/21
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 16 hours, 20 minutes ago
Many do choose the benefits lifestylle. I literally know dozens of people from my youth that have never worked a day. Council house, holidays, Sky, car, I phones, always in the pub.
-------
Firstly, you're a liar.
Secondly, they didn't get all that from £57 a week did they.
You really are a horrible little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I’d love to know where RDD grew up. ‘Dozens of people’ who have never worked a day? Is he still at school? (Would explain a lot, tbh.)
Having grown up in a (very) working class part of Manchester, I don’t know one single person who ‘chose a benefits lifestyle’, and certainly not one who has spent close to more time on benefits than they have working.
posted on 30/6/21
My only wish is that Jack Grealish produces a lot of offspring.
posted on 30/6/21
A report, published today by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) also states that fraud within the Universal Credit benefits system during the pandemic reached an all-time high, rising by £3.8bn to £5.5bn between April last year and March 2021.
posted on 30/6/21
But IDS's system is fool proof. He promised.