What if human fertility rates plummeted?

Lursa said:

That assumes that a) the draft/conscription was right and b) the human race is viewed as having some sacrosanct justification for continuing.

Just because I disagree with your analogy, it's only my personal opinion and your analogy is really a pretty good one.

Click to expand...

Given that we have yet to discover any other intelligent life in the universe, humans may still have the right to think they are special and have a special place in the cosmos.

RobertU said:

Given that we have yet to discover any other intelligent life in the universe, humans may still have the right to think they are special and have a special place in the cosmos.

Click to expand...

I dont particularly believe that and I dont think we have anymore 'special' right to existence than other life on earth. I didnt say give up, but at a certain point, if you are reduced to such de-humanization...what are you saving?

But people have the right to believe what they wish.

RobertU said:

I am not so much advocating "broodmares" as I am pointing out a double standard regarding what men and women should be required to sacrifice to preserve their societies. In any case, I suspect civil liberties will fall to the side fairly quickly in a post-apocalyptic world.

I read recently that 46 percent of women in the US of childbearing age have not had even one child. Given that women in arranged marriages have more children than Westernized woman, it would appear that our overly-romanticized views of how to choose a mate, coupled with careerism and rampant materialism, may prove to be an evolutionary dead end for both the West and its liberal values.

Click to expand...

I only see good things about fewer people, so it's not a particularly convincing argument for me.

I'm not saying it's not valid for many people, but it's not for all.

RobertU said:

For thousands of years men have been forced into military service to protect their tribes or nations or advance their interests, at the cost of individual liberty and often their lives.

Why should not women be forced into reproductive service to protect their tribes or nations or advance their interests? How is that worse than the sacrifice that has been demanded of men?

Click to expand...

Well you see we don't really do that anymore

In the short-term, it would be a good thing for humanity. Humanity has over-populated its ecosystem, and curtailment could be seen as beneficial. However, long-term, only 1 in 100 people being able to have a baby would mean the end of the human race.

One possible outcome that would avoid that extinction would be scientific work-arounds, such as cloning or synthetic fertilizations. But, each of those comes with their own problems. In addition to those problems, in either case, you'd have only the wealthy or influential being able to reproduce.

Why not the best?

Anarchon said:

In the short-term, it would be a good thing for humanity. Humanity has over-populated its ecosystem, and curtailment could be seen as beneficial. However, long-term, only 1 in 100 people being able to have a baby would mean the end of the human race.

One possible outcome that would avoid that extinction would be scientific work-arounds, such as cloning or synthetic fertilizations. But, each of those comes with their own problems. In addition to those problems, in either case, you'd have only the wealthy or influential being able to reproduce.

Click to expand...

If only 1% of the human population could reproduce? Why would the wealthy or powerful be the only ones able to reproduce? The scenario posited makes human survival sound doubtful - in that case, whoever is selecting those who reproduce would be under a lot of pressure to make the best selections possible: broad genetic diversity, no fatal inheritable diseases, no madness or crippling CNS disorders among ancestors, fairly young, good genes in the background, & so on. If the stakes are the continuation of humanity, I doubt that money nor power are going to overrule expert opinion on what's needed to carry on.

DifferentDrummr said:

Since a lot of people in this topic area like to reference The Handmaid's Tale, (which I think is a pretty good book), this might make an interesting thought experiment in today's context.

In the story, only about 1 out of 100 people were still able to conceive or father children. In response, the fictional Republic of Gilead decided to create a class of female slaves called "handmaids," taken from the population if they were still fertile and forced to bear children for the most powerful families. The idea, of course, was to ensure that as many new babies as possible could be born.

So I'm asking you to imagine the fertility rates rapidly going down to this level in the here and now, for reasons not apparent to science or medicine. What, if anything, would you want the government to do about this situation?

Click to expand...

Well now they are dropping fast, and no one knows why....

I dont think we should do anything now, we need to drop the human population on this planet, this is a good thing.

Re: Why not the best?

southwest88 said:

If only 1% of the human population could reproduce? Why would the wealthy or powerful be the only ones able to reproduce? The scenario posited makes human survival sound doubtful - in that case, whoever is selecting those who reproduce would be under a lot of pressure to make the best selections possible: broad genetic diversity, no fatal inheritable diseases, no madness or crippling CNS disorders among ancestors, fairly young, good genes in the background, & so on. If the stakes are the continuation of humanity, I doubt that money nor power are going to overrule expert opinion on what's needed to carry on.

Click to expand...

The wealthy or influential would be the only ones to be able to afford the scientific workarounds to the low fertility problem, as stated. And, you're assuming that they'd give up their influence in the interest of humanity. I don't think that happens in the wild.

RobertU said:

I am not so much advocating "broodmares" as I am pointing out a double standard regarding what men and women should be required to sacrifice to preserve their societies. In any case, I suspect civil liberties will fall to the side fairly quickly in a post-apocalyptic world.

I read recently that 46 percent of women in the US of childbearing age have not had even one child. Given that women in arranged marriages have more children than Westernized woman, it would appear that our overly-romanticized views of how to choose a mate, coupled with careerism and rampant materialism, may prove to be an evolutionary dead end for both the West and its liberal values.

Click to expand...

First of all we haven't had a draft since the 60's...and if we did, I think it is perfectly fine to draft men and women.

Second of all, in the military there is a such thing as conscientious objectors.Are you saying a woman would not be able to conscientiously object to being a brood mare?


What you are saying is that if the apocalypse happens and a women does not allow her self to be raped or medically assaulted she is the bad one? If that is what our society came down to, does not sound like society should be saved.

year2late said:

First of all we haven't had a draft since the 60's...and if we did, I think it is perfectly fine to draft men and women.

Second of all, in the military there is a such thing as conscientious objectors.Are you saying a woman would not be able to conscientiously object to being a brood mare?


What you are saying is that if the apocalypse happens and a women does not allow her self to be raped or medically assaulted she is the bad one? If that is what our society came down to, does not sound like society should be saved.

Click to expand...

If a human fertility crisis occurs, it will be a global one and other nations will likely find an effective solution, regardless of whether or not it offends your liberal sensibilities.

RobertU said:

If a human fertility crisis occurs, it will be a global one and other nations will likely find an effective solution, regardless of whether or not it offends your liberal sensibilities.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you believe the human race would use force to gain it's ends? Taking the High Road to the last!

(IMO that's entirely possible)

Lursa said:

Ah, so you believe the human race would use force to gain it's ends? Taking the High Road to the last!

(IMO that's entirely possible)

Click to expand...

You seem to think the rest of nature is somehow morally superior to humanity. Yet, the female praying mantis will bite off the head of the male to help assure the continuation of her species. Don't complain about the force that may be necessary to save the human race.

RobertU said:

If a human fertility crisis occurs, it will be a global one and other nations will likely find an effective solution, regardless of whether or not it offends your liberal sensibilities.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that women will be willing to oblige, but your scenario sounded more like a misogynistic fantasy forcing women into broodmare service or else .

And if a woman did not want to oblige? If we really are a society and not a criminal gang, she should be allowed to say no.

But if mass infertility does occur....why? Is it something that can even be overcome? Is nature trying a reset because something is drastically wrong? Overpopulation, over use of resources, destruction of the environment?

RobertU said:

You seem to think the rest of nature is somehow morally superior to humanity. Yet, the female praying mantis will bite off the head of the male to help assure the continuation of her species. Don't complain about the force that may be necessary to save the human race.

Click to expand...

"Superior?" I've given no such impression at all.

I will say with assurance however, that we are not above nature, at all.

I can complain about anything I want. I'm not a believer in life at all costs.

year2late said:

I think you will find that women will be willing to oblige, but your scenario sounded more like a misogynistic fantasy forcing women into broodmare service or else .

And if a woman did not want to oblige? If we really are a society and not a criminal gang, she should be allowed to say no.

But if mass infertility does occur....why? Is it something that can even be overcome? Is nature trying a reset because something is drastically wrong? Overpopulation, over use of resources, destruction of the environment?

Click to expand...

Meh, men have used force against women all thru history, it wouldnt surprise me at all if women were forced again into breeding.

OTOH, I also agree that I believe in the OP scenario, most women would be willing to try to become pregnant.

Neither power nor money is what it used to be

Anarchon said:

The wealthy or influential would be the only ones to be able to afford the scientific workarounds to the low fertility problem, as stated. And, you're assuming that they'd give up their influence in the interest of humanity. I don't think that happens in the wild.

Click to expand...

No.

1. There are lots of fertility clinics & frozen ova & sperm in the nations of Western Civilization, especially the US & Northern & Western Europe. & frozen embryos, for that matter. As the scenario doesn't posit mass disruption to technical societies, I assume that the power & utilities & comms & transportation are still up & running. In that case, I would expect CDC or the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories in Maryland or some other agency (if it doesn't exist already) to take over the effort of bringing embryos to term. & working with frozen ova & sperm to see if viable embryos can be teased out of the raw material.

2. Efforts would also be made to understand what caused the near sterilization, & to see what could be done to reverse the condition. But I would expect the main effort to go into trying to bring more embryos to term - as proof of concept, if nothing else. If the embryos can be brought to term, then perhaps the ova & sperm can also produce embryos & go to term.

3. Would the wealthy or powerful take on the US government and military & police? I don't think so - & if the situation evolves into a do-or-die crisis, government has a monopoly on sanctioned violence. The US military & government already have continuation of administration & military plans in place - & repurposed missile silos & deep caverns & etc. that can be converted into long-term living space, if need be. Nuke subs with skeleton crews are another possibility. Their power plants are good for 20 years (?), they can generate their own water, oxygen, trace elements. If they can work out taking on fish & plant material without surfacing, & processing that into reasonable food, they could last a long time underwater.

The needed biomedical expertise would be pretty well spread around. The military already has a lock on some of the more promising refuges, if it comes to that. & the military has the discipline & weapons & trained personnel, if push comes to shove.

Re: Neither power nor money is what it used to be

southwest88 said:

No.

1. There are lots of fertility clinics & frozen ova & sperm in the nations of Western Civilization, especially the US & Northern & Western Europe. & frozen embryos, for that matter. As the scenario doesn't posit mass disruption to technical societies, I assume that the power & utilities & comms & transportation are still up & running. In that case, I would expect CDC or the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories in Maryland or some other agency (if it doesn't exist already) to take over the effort of bringing embryos to term. & working with frozen ova & sperm to see if viable embryos can be teased out of the raw material.

2. Efforts would also be made to understand what caused the near sterilization, & to see what could be done to reverse the condition. But I would expect the main effort to go into trying to bring more embryos to term - as proof of concept, if nothing else. If the embryos can be brought to term, then perhaps the ova & sperm can also produce embryos & go to term.

3. Would the wealthy or powerful take on the US government and military & police? I don't think so - & if the situation evolves into a do-or-die crisis, government has a monopoly on sanctioned violence. The US military & government already have continuation of administration & military plans in place - & repurposed missile silos & deep caverns & etc. that can be converted into long-term living space, if need be. Nuke subs with skeleton crews are another possibility. Their power plants are good for 20 years (?), they can generate their own water, oxygen, trace elements. If they can work out taking on fish & plant material without surfacing, & processing that into reasonable food, they could last a long time underwater.

The needed biomedical expertise would be pretty well spread around. The military already has a lock on some of the more promising refuges, if it comes to that. & the military has the discipline & weapons & trained personnel, if push comes to shove.

Click to expand...

I see the problem. You're one of those people that doesn't understand the nature of government. Ever notice that those in power, regardless of type of government, have a lot of money? The government and their buddies would be the ones with the money and influence.

DifferentDrummr said:

Since a lot of people in this topic area like to reference The Handmaid's Tale, (which I think is a pretty good book), this might make an interesting thought experiment in today's context.

In the story, only about 1 out of 100 people were still able to conceive or father children. In response, the fictional Republic of Gilead decided to create a class of female slaves called "handmaids," taken from the population if they were still fertile and forced to bear children for the most powerful families. The idea, of course, was to ensure that as many new babies as possible could be born.

So I'm asking you to imagine the fertility rates rapidly going down to this level in the here and now, for reasons not apparent to science or medicine. What, if anything, would you want the government to do about this situation?

Click to expand...

They sort of are.

Try to find a cure, absolutely protect all children, and adjust including all the social stress points and interpersonal conflicts this would cause. Turning women into baby making slaves? No. Turn men into professional studs? No. I could see extreme rewards OFFERED as perks to fertile couples to have more children.

Nor would want to see making babies in medical factories as that could never be turned off.

I do not share the view of "wow, would this be great for earth!"

Earth will do just fine no matter what humans do or don't do.

Species survival is dependent upon females - not males. Unless basically nearly ALL males became infertile, it would change little other than population would definitely slow - though not because women couldn't get pregnant.

95% of men could become infertile and the result would be that being a professional sperm bank donor would become a 6 figure profession - and for the few men with the ideal looks, eye color, build, intelligence etc it could become a 7 figure income. Women would still have babies and men would adjust as most men who are sterile do.

For a while, maybe still, in the UK a group of feminists were pouring serious $$ into seeking a way to use genetic therapy and manipulation so the dna of another woman - rather than a man's sperm - could impregnate a woman. The goal? Erase any necessity for a man to procreate. While they claimed had succeeded for lower life forms, it had not yet been successful for higher life forms such as mice and rats.

In one testing of GMOs on rats, nearly all were sterile by the 5th generation. People are constantly bombarded with radiation ever since the massive number of nuclear bomb tests, now leaking reactors. We are bombarded by X-rays and all sorts of frequencies that mutate dna, our food is chemicals, even our cell phones in a pocket and alter dna - which also can reduce fertility.

However, the CHART shown? Maybe it is as simple as more people are pro-actively NOT having children or as many - and THAT is the measure of "infertility" - not as a measure of sterility.

DifferentDrummr said:

Since a lot of people in this topic area like to reference The Handmaid's Tale, (which I think is a pretty good book), this might make an interesting thought experiment in today's context.

In the story, only about 1 out of 100 people were still able to conceive or father children. In response, the fictional Republic of Gilead decided to create a class of female slaves called "handmaids," taken from the population if they were still fertile and forced to bear children for the most powerful families. The idea, of course, was to ensure that as many new babies as possible could be born.

So I'm asking you to imagine the fertility rates rapidly going down to this level in the here and now, for reasons not apparent to science or medicine. What, if anything, would you want the government to do about this situation?

Click to expand...

Nothing. There are too many people in the world as it is.

RobertU said:

I am not so much advocating "broodmares" as I am pointing out a double standard regarding what men and women should be required to sacrifice to preserve their societies. In any case, I suspect civil liberties will fall to the side fairly quickly in a post-apocalyptic world.

I read recently that 46 percent of women in the US of childbearing age have not had even one child. Given that women in arranged marriages have more children than Westernized woman, it would appear that our overly-romanticized views of how to choose a mate, coupled with careerism and rampant materialism, may prove to be an evolutionary dead end for both the West and its liberal values.

Click to expand...

Did you ever think that many people choose the smart option of not having children if they cannot afford it. It's very expensive to have and raise a child today.

In the past, for most people having children was profitable - or even necessary for economic survival. For a long time, sterility was legal grounds to divorce a woman - and a divorced woman was not in a good situation.

If rural, the children were the farm and ranch hands. If urban, they worked in the factories or other ways to bring in a little money. Children were economically worth more being part of the household income source more than it costs to care for the children. All income the children earned or any income their labor produced 100% went into the family budget no different that the parents.

Now having children is a HUGE money losing expense - other than those who live at the economic bottom end as deliberate career welfare mothers - and there are millions. But for the rest of us? Now children do not bring income into the family. Rather they just cost lots and lots and lots of money. Those teens who do earn money? They figure its all theirs.

And now lots of kids think if their parents have money they should keep paying year after year - college, down payment on house, cosign a car note etc etc. Few kids will say "Mom, Dad, I got a job paying me $5000 a month with that college degree you paid for! So I'll be sending you $2000 of it each month for the hundreds of thousands you spent on me over the years. Thanks!!" That doesn't happen.