Main Edition
US
FR
August 21, 2023 - 1:00pm
The fall in Chinese birthrates might be the biggest story of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the data — or lack thereof — has been found wanting. A must-read analysis by Liyan Qi for the Wall Street Journal points out that China’s National Bureau of Statistics “stopped releasing annual data on total fertility rate in 2017”.
That’s par for the course in the People’s Republic. Once a situation becomes embarrassing to the country’s leadership, official information starts disappearing fast. Qi cites the suspension of the rising youth unemployment figures as another example. Then there’s the cover-up surrounding the origins of the Covid pandemic.
However, the news blackout isn’t quite complete. Both the WSJ and Reuters report on the release of a study by China’s National Health Commission which shows that, in 2022, the country’s total fertility rate (TFR) was just 1.09.
The TFR of a population is an estimate of the number of children that will, on average, be born to each woman over her lifetime. Leaving aside non-reproductive factors like immigration, it would take a TFR of just over 2 to keep a population stable. A TFR of just over 1 is therefore wholly inadequate. If sustained over decades, it means that each generation will be little more than half the size of the one before it.
Of course, China isn’t the only country in world with a diminishing birth rate. For instance, the latest UK TFR is just 1.59 — a 20-year low. And yet the speed of the decline in China is extraordinary. The Wall Street Journal analysis features the work of the demographer Yi Fuxian. He expects fewer than 8 million births this year, compared to the 18 million recorded in 2016. Being a teacher must be one of the most insecure jobs in China.
This is not some “future shock” scenario. The most populous nation on the planet is undergoing a demographic collapse — one that we can see unfolding, not decade-by-decade, but year-by-year.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy no mention of the (now abandoned) One Child policy that was rigorously enforced for decades, even to the extent of mothers expecting a second child having forced abortions? This is surely the yoke that China has imposed upon itself, and something that all ultra-authoritarian regimes tend to do in different ways which results in their ultimate failure.
The one child policy was a disaster, but I think birthrates would have fallen off a cliff regardless – pointing to the other Confucian countries as evidence. But what’s odd is that demographics has had an aggregate profile such that you could predict populations a century ahead, assuming no lethal diseases or wars and natural disasters (like Genghis Khan or the black death) beyond the expected. But this profile is now clearly broken and decline is now much more rapid than in the past. Indian demographics which I follow is also beginning to nosedive, and to my utter surprise, so is African demographics. I fully expected Africa to top out near 4 bln just two or three years ago, but it is becoming clearer and clearer, Africa is unlikely to even reach 3 bln, perhaps as low as 2.5 bln looks very possible.
The issue is compounded by the fact that in Chinese culture children are expected to support the parents financially in old age. So if you’re an only child, the burden falls solely on you – making other expenses (like having a child) less likely.
You call it low?
What was Africa population 60 years ago?
Maybe 300 million.
The only reason they overbreed is Western science, engineering and medicine.
Without Russian or Ukrainian grain they would starve.
Good points…it seems hardly any time since the UN were predicting hundreds of millions population for Tanzania, Nigeria and many others. But now it seems fertility rates are falling or flattening almost everywhere.
The issue is compounded by the fact that in Chinese culture children are expected to support the parents financially in old age. So if you’re an only child, the burden falls solely on you – making other expenses (like having a child) less likely.
You call it low?
What was Africa population 60 years ago?
Maybe 300 million.
The only reason they overbreed is Western science, engineering and medicine.
Without Russian or Ukrainian grain they would starve.
Good points…it seems hardly any time since the UN were predicting hundreds of millions population for Tanzania, Nigeria and many others. But now it seems fertility rates are falling or flattening almost everywhere.
They did forced abortions all the time.
Ever wonder if they would ever get to a point where they bring the Handmaids Tale to life?
If they would do forced abortions…is it a stretch think they might do forced pregnancies if the party policy is to push for a rebound in population?
I’m somewhat surprised this hasn’t happened. I can only chalk it up to how completely the Chinese are bought into the Maoist notion of population decline being a good thing.
I’m somewhat surprised this hasn’t happened. I can only chalk it up to how completely the Chinese are bought into the Maoist notion of population decline being a good thing.
Because as the decline in birth rates everywhere else in the world clearly shows, it wasn’t really necessary. Setting aside the human rights violations and considering the macro society level implications, it probably only accelerated something that would have happened anyway without any intervention. It was a draconian policy that runs contrary to any notion of human rights, but that wasn’t the sole cause of fertility decline. It just poured gas on the fire, as it were, though the Chinese who implemented it may or may not have known that.
The rest of the world, except Africa (for now), is following the same path, just a bit slower.
We have the benefit of watching how the Chinese deal with this crisis; what they do right and what they do wrong. The Japanese will be next, then Italy et al.
When the crisis fully hits in the UK and US we’ll have plenty of data to help us cope (hopefully).
All true, but can planet sustain ever rising population?
Is it not the case that GDP growth per head in the West was, at least partially, result of falling birth rates?
It is impossible for other countries to both have Western standard of living and exponentially growing population.
The one child policy was a disaster, but I think birthrates would have fallen off a cliff regardless – pointing to the other Confucian countries as evidence. But what’s odd is that demographics has had an aggregate profile such that you could predict populations a century ahead, assuming no lethal diseases or wars and natural disasters (like Genghis Khan or the black death) beyond the expected. But this profile is now clearly broken and decline is now much more rapid than in the past. Indian demographics which I follow is also beginning to nosedive, and to my utter surprise, so is African demographics. I fully expected Africa to top out near 4 bln just two or three years ago, but it is becoming clearer and clearer, Africa is unlikely to even reach 3 bln, perhaps as low as 2.5 bln looks very possible.
They did forced abortions all the time.
Ever wonder if they would ever get to a point where they bring the Handmaids Tale to life?
If they would do forced abortions…is it a stretch think they might do forced pregnancies if the party policy is to push for a rebound in population?
Because as the decline in birth rates everywhere else in the world clearly shows, it wasn’t really necessary. Setting aside the human rights violations and considering the macro society level implications, it probably only accelerated something that would have happened anyway without any intervention. It was a draconian policy that runs contrary to any notion of human rights, but that wasn’t the sole cause of fertility decline. It just poured gas on the fire, as it were, though the Chinese who implemented it may or may not have known that.
The rest of the world, except Africa (for now), is following the same path, just a bit slower.
We have the benefit of watching how the Chinese deal with this crisis; what they do right and what they do wrong. The Japanese will be next, then Italy et al.
When the crisis fully hits in the UK and US we’ll have plenty of data to help us cope (hopefully).
All true, but can planet sustain ever rising population?
Is it not the case that GDP growth per head in the West was, at least partially, result of falling birth rates?
It is impossible for other countries to both have Western standard of living and exponentially growing population.
Why no mention of the (now abandoned) One Child policy that was rigorously enforced for decades, even to the extent of mothers expecting a second child having forced abortions? This is surely the yoke that China has imposed upon itself, and something that all ultra-authoritarian regimes tend to do in different ways which results in their ultimate failure.
I read this the other day (from http://www.nextbigfuture.com)
If this is right and you are in your 20s, you need to have 4 children and instil in them a sense of obligation to have 4 kids themselves and to pass it down in turn to their kids.
By 2300 your ancestors could make up 4% of the world’s total population!
Lovely maths!
Yes but fertility rates would bounce back after a certain point, and its naive to project the trend indefinitely
Why though? Why would fertility bounce back if incentives remain unaltered? It’s certainly naive to assume any trend will continue indefinitely but isn’t it equally naive to assume the opposite? Speaking in terms of probability, neither should be assumed as more likely than the other without evidence or reason. Considering how unprecedented the situation is, I think we should make as few assumptions as possible.
Rapid population collapse will bring radical changes to society, requiring entirely different economic and social models, which can’t be predicted. So, incentives wouldn’t simply remain unaltered.
The Black Death – a similarly rapid shake up – brought widespread improvements in conditions for peasant workers, for example.
The black death however, didn’t systematically reduce population by reducing births. It killed people of all ages, children and adults, probably disproportionately killing the weakest members of the population. The population left over would be a more representative sample of survivors, tending towards the healthy and the strong, ideal conditions for the improvements you mentioned. Modern population trends created by modern conditions however, leave a markedly different pattern. By lowering birth rates across the board, the decrease is exclusively composed of the young, with no natural selection factor such as an illness or environmental condition at work. If the black plague had killed mostly children, it would be a better comparison, though still an imperfect one as presumably the survivors would have survival advantages. You may be right. Modern population decrease may, thanks to technology, produce effects similar to plagues of the past where surplus population reductions lead to gains for workers and standard of living increases. Then again, it may not. There’s no direct historical analog that I am aware of. We’re not comparing apples to oranges. We’re comparing apples to something unidentified that looks vaguely like an apple. It may be like an apple enough for comparisons to work, but that’s a huge assumption to make.
A wide variety of factors might be contributing to population collapse, all at the same time, but ironically population collapse would completely transform the conditions which had lead to it, and perhaps move the culture back towards its antithesis. E.g. A culture of unlimited individualism would no longer be sustainable under the transformed conditions
A wide variety of factors might be contributing to population collapse, all at the same time, but ironically population collapse would completely transform the conditions which had lead to it, and perhaps move the culture back towards its antithesis. E.g. A culture of unlimited individualism would no longer be sustainable under the transformed conditions
Bur what West is doing is complete opposite to your Black Death scenario.
We import low IQ, violent savages to replace native population.
This is not going to end well.
The black death however, didn’t systematically reduce population by reducing births. It killed people of all ages, children and adults, probably disproportionately killing the weakest members of the population. The population left over would be a more representative sample of survivors, tending towards the healthy and the strong, ideal conditions for the improvements you mentioned. Modern population trends created by modern conditions however, leave a markedly different pattern. By lowering birth rates across the board, the decrease is exclusively composed of the young, with no natural selection factor such as an illness or environmental condition at work. If the black plague had killed mostly children, it would be a better comparison, though still an imperfect one as presumably the survivors would have survival advantages. You may be right. Modern population decrease may, thanks to technology, produce effects similar to plagues of the past where surplus population reductions lead to gains for workers and standard of living increases. Then again, it may not. There’s no direct historical analog that I am aware of. We’re not comparing apples to oranges. We’re comparing apples to something unidentified that looks vaguely like an apple. It may be like an apple enough for comparisons to work, but that’s a huge assumption to make.
Bur what West is doing is complete opposite to your Black Death scenario.
We import low IQ, violent savages to replace native population.
This is not going to end well.
It’s naive (absurd) to assume that the incentives won’t change. We are blasé now. If anything like these fanciful numbers came to pass the next generations will change their tune quick smart.
Rapid population collapse will bring radical changes to society, requiring entirely different economic and social models, which can’t be predicted. So, incentives wouldn’t simply remain unaltered.
The Black Death – a similarly rapid shake up – brought widespread improvements in conditions for peasant workers, for example.
It’s naive (absurd) to assume that the incentives won’t change. We are blasé now. If anything like these fanciful numbers came to pass the next generations will change their tune quick smart.
Good point… we humans seem to make a habit of assuming all trends will simply continue even when the new trends are the opposite of the old trends that we have seen not continue. Extrapolating done properly it is a bit of fun…but it can sometimes be irritatingly otiose..as in the climate debate at the moment.
Why though? Why would fertility bounce back if incentives remain unaltered? It’s certainly naive to assume any trend will continue indefinitely but isn’t it equally naive to assume the opposite? Speaking in terms of probability, neither should be assumed as more likely than the other without evidence or reason. Considering how unprecedented the situation is, I think we should make as few assumptions as possible.
Good point… we humans seem to make a habit of assuming all trends will simply continue even when the new trends are the opposite of the old trends that we have seen not continue. Extrapolating done properly it is a bit of fun…but it can sometimes be irritatingly otiose..as in the climate debate at the moment.
Except by then, people won’t be dying any more.
The flaw in that extrapolation is the assumption that the technology for immortality will exist. A sustained collapse in population will drastically slow or stop “scientific” progress.
The flaw in that extrapolation is the assumption that the technology for immortality will exist. A sustained collapse in population will drastically slow or stop “scientific” progress.
I’m not sure about the math, but I like the way you think
Lovely maths!
Yes but fertility rates would bounce back after a certain point, and its naive to project the trend indefinitely
Except by then, people won’t be dying any more.
I’m not sure about the math, but I like the way you think
I read this the other day (from http://www.nextbigfuture.com)
If this is right and you are in your 20s, you need to have 4 children and instil in them a sense of obligation to have 4 kids themselves and to pass it down in turn to their kids.
By 2300 your ancestors could make up 4% of the world’s total population!
Long studies + Dual Income Households + High housing cost
seems to be the ultimate contraceptive all over the developped world
Yes.
I am amazed that so few people upvoted you.
Yes.
I am amazed that so few people upvoted you.
Long studies + Dual Income Households + High housing cost
seems to be the ultimate contraceptive all over the developped world
Some good news for a change!
Some good news for a change!
We’re biologically programmed to compete over scarce resources. Famine is a visceral, instinctive fear, which the Chinese understand better than most thanks to recent history. In an era of educated people and easy birth control, it stands to reason that fertility would decline, as making fewer mouths to feed would seem intuitive to even the dimmest minds among us. Children are expensive, and with government safety nets replacing familial care for the elderly, less necessary than ever. Why not then have fewer children and conserve one’s own resources? As the prisoner’s dilemma and other game theory shows, however, individuals making perfectly rational and self-interested independent decisions can still produce sub-optimal results when the entire group is considered. We don’t really know what sort of problems a declining population entails. Historically, the few occasions that saw declining human populations were the result of mass deaths, caused by things like war, plague, and famine. We don’t have any examples of a population declining for the opposite reason, because birth control didn’t exist for most of our history. Elon has a point when he urges us not to be too casual. This has not happened before. There are no templates to follow, no list of historical failures to avoid. How can we possibly know what to expect?
Somewhere along the line we forgot that people and the famlies they create are the whole point of government, economics, science and industry.
Somewhere along the line we forgot that all these other systems were initially created to protect and provide for families.
Somewhere along the line, people became taxpayers, consumers, employees and voters. We now refer to people in reference to their role in relationship to some system, not the other way around.
Somewhere along the line people allowed themselves to be convinced that the path to happiness and fullfillment was to be a wage slave who then consumes as much crap as possible and pays the government for the privilege.
That last has been a failure. You need look no further than just about any poll on happiness and satisfaction. It just keeps going lower.
The truth is, people have learned to live to work, not work to live. The price has been the traditional sense of community and belonging that comes from family. Things, that when measured, again and again prove to be the best path to happiness and fulfillment.
perfect summary thanks daniel. Again an enron ‘the smartest minds in the room” scenario. Too many sheep and not enough motivated questioners – the same old story. Evil happens whilst good men cant be bothered challenging bullswool – and it happened EVERYWHERE during a fascist takeover of our psychology and culture. Many of us have watched it happen (and been often sidelined workwise) but the masses of sheep just went quietly along with it all to the psychic slaughter – and it happened in an age when you could google any info you wanted. Dunno about you but I am fairly well organised and had only 1 child to fret about – but it will be the too lazy to participate by thinking sheeples that will bear much of the brunt … ‘I think therefore I will have more options – and just perhaps help to maintain a modicum of wisdom in our world”…..the 4 horses have bolted – time to hunker down……
perfect summary thanks daniel. Again an enron ‘the smartest minds in the room” scenario. Too many sheep and not enough motivated questioners – the same old story. Evil happens whilst good men cant be bothered challenging bullswool – and it happened EVERYWHERE during a fascist takeover of our psychology and culture. Many of us have watched it happen (and been often sidelined workwise) but the masses of sheep just went quietly along with it all to the psychic slaughter – and it happened in an age when you could google any info you wanted. Dunno about you but I am fairly well organised and had only 1 child to fret about – but it will be the too lazy to participate by thinking sheeples that will bear much of the brunt … ‘I think therefore I will have more options – and just perhaps help to maintain a modicum of wisdom in our world”…..the 4 horses have bolted – time to hunker down……
Somewhere along the line we forgot that people and the famlies they create are the whole point of government, economics, science and industry.
Somewhere along the line we forgot that all these other systems were initially created to protect and provide for families.
Somewhere along the line, people became taxpayers, consumers, employees and voters. We now refer to people in reference to their role in relationship to some system, not the other way around.
Somewhere along the line people allowed themselves to be convinced that the path to happiness and fullfillment was to be a wage slave who then consumes as much crap as possible and pays the government for the privilege.
That last has been a failure. You need look no further than just about any poll on happiness and satisfaction. It just keeps going lower.
The truth is, people have learned to live to work, not work to live. The price has been the traditional sense of community and belonging that comes from family. Things, that when measured, again and again prove to be the best path to happiness and fulfillment.
We’re biologically programmed to compete over scarce resources. Famine is a visceral, instinctive fear, which the Chinese understand better than most thanks to recent history. In an era of educated people and easy birth control, it stands to reason that fertility would decline, as making fewer mouths to feed would seem intuitive to even the dimmest minds among us. Children are expensive, and with government safety nets replacing familial care for the elderly, less necessary than ever. Why not then have fewer children and conserve one’s own resources? As the prisoner’s dilemma and other game theory shows, however, individuals making perfectly rational and self-interested independent decisions can still produce sub-optimal results when the entire group is considered. We don’t really know what sort of problems a declining population entails. Historically, the few occasions that saw declining human populations were the result of mass deaths, caused by things like war, plague, and famine. We don’t have any examples of a population declining for the opposite reason, because birth control didn’t exist for most of our history. Elon has a point when he urges us not to be too casual. This has not happened before. There are no templates to follow, no list of historical failures to avoid. How can we possibly know what to expect?
Wait. Let me look at the NY Times. I’m sure this can be “attributed” to climate change!
Wait. Let me look at the NY Times. I’m sure this can be “attributed” to climate change!
I came across this analysis the other day. It suggests that if the TFR drops to 1.0 in most countries (and it is currently below or dropping towards 2.0 apart from in sub-Saharan Africa and a few very poor Asian countries) the world population will go from 8.1 billion to 250 million by 2200 with the ruin of economies starting around 2035. I haven’t tried running the numbers myself but it is certainly eye-catching. It also includes some unappetising solutions like mass surrogacy!
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/07/what-disaster-happened-2200-the-world-only-has-250-million-people.html
Considerably worse, or better, depending on one’s point of view than the dreaded Black Death.
I would consider cloning myself a-thousand times when the technology becomes available
How do you know that this technology will be available to everyone?
Governments would restrict it.
Anyway, why do you think thousand of you is good for humanity?
I don’t really. In fact it would be horrifying
I don’t really. In fact it would be horrifying
How do you know that this technology will be available to everyone?
Governments would restrict it.
Anyway, why do you think thousand of you is good for humanity?
Considerably worse, or better, depending on one’s point of view than the dreaded Black Death.
I would consider cloning myself a-thousand times when the technology becomes available
I came across this analysis the other day. It suggests that if the TFR drops to 1.0 in most countries (and it is currently below or dropping towards 2.0 apart from in sub-Saharan Africa and a few very poor Asian countries) the world population will go from 8.1 billion to 250 million by 2200 with the ruin of economies starting around 2035. I haven’t tried running the numbers myself but it is certainly eye-catching. It also includes some unappetising solutions like mass surrogacy!
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/07/what-disaster-happened-2200-the-world-only-has-250-million-people.html
The world’s population was at 1 billion in 1803 and 2 billion in 1928. In less than 100 years, it has quadrupled to over 8 billion.
How can a population decline by the world’s most populous country be described as anything other than a good thing?
To be fair at least Chinese contribute something to humanity.
But Africans and Muslims?
Locust on the planet.
To be fair at least Chinese contribute something to humanity.
But Africans and Muslims?
Locust on the planet.
The world’s population was at 1 billion in 1803 and 2 billion in 1928. In less than 100 years, it has quadrupled to over 8 billion.
How can a population decline by the world’s most populous country be described as anything other than a good thing?
With cheap chinese slave labour drying out another nail is hammered into globalisation’s coffin
With cheap chinese slave labour drying out another nail is hammered into globalisation’s coffin
The comments in this thread… “What does it matter if humans exist?” “Aren’t living conditions for other creatures more important than ours?” “Should I exist?” “Maybe it’s time for us all to just die?” (You first!)
Like many Unherd threads, it nicely models the giant gaping theological hole at the heart of the modern cosmopolitan’s soul.
That’s a straw man really. Suggesting that the world is overpopulated doesn’t equate to negating all human life, or complete human extinction.
That’s a straw man really. Suggesting that the world is overpopulated doesn’t equate to negating all human life, or complete human extinction.
The comments in this thread… “What does it matter if humans exist?” “Aren’t living conditions for other creatures more important than ours?” “Should I exist?” “Maybe it’s time for us all to just die?” (You first!)
Like many Unherd threads, it nicely models the giant gaping theological hole at the heart of the modern cosmopolitan’s soul.
There is a good side to this story. Given the state of the planet fewer babies being born for a few decades would be a good thing to allow the natural world to recover
There is a good side to this story. Given the state of the planet fewer babies being born for a few decades would be a good thing to allow the natural world to recover
If you find Lovelock’s hypothesis of Gaia meaningful or interesting, then maybe this worldwide population collapse could be read as a temporary correction, or return to equilibrium, within the harmonized organism (Gaia) of Earth.
Less reductive than viewing it through the lens of economic forecasts and projections anyway.
If you find Lovelock’s hypothesis of Gaia meaningful or interesting, then maybe this worldwide population collapse could be read as a temporary correction, or return to equilibrium, within the harmonized organism (Gaia) of Earth.
Less reductive than viewing it through the lens of economic forecasts and projections anyway.
Good! The most important problem this world has is too many people – this is the natural way of sorting that out.
Agreed – perhaps lead by example and jump into the Thames?
But only at low tide.
Otherwise he might survive.
But only at low tide.
Otherwise he might survive.
I was rather banking on COVID but was to be disappointed!
As Matt M of this forum put it so beautifully the other day :”Bloody Chinese! Even the deadly viruses they manufacture don’t work properly.”
That is a stupid statement.
That particular panic story has been pushed for over a century and has yet to come true.
Besides, the whole point is the survival of the human species, not the planet, not other species, the human species.
Why? Because no matter what humans do, the world WILL end and all species will die off eventually, with us or without us. Either some disease will come along, a super volcano will go off such as the one under Yellowstone, a massive asteroid will hit and create a global firestorm. All things that have happened repeatedly before. If that is not enough, at some point in the future the sun will die out and the planet will grow frozen cold and all life will perish. Might be good to have a few excess billion humans just in case most of us get wiped out by nature first.
Our goal, is to make sure that we survive as a species long enough to actually figure out how to get the heck off of this rock before that happens.
I fail to see why.
Why, exactly? Everyone in this discussion will die eventually, as will everyone they love, as will everyone their loved ones love. Why is it essential that some remnant survive? Earth AND its humans may just naturally have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Maybe they do have an end, but I for one would prefer to see us last as long as possible, learn as much as possible and go as far as possible.
Just as I think governments have forgotten, so it would appear have you and Simon. The PEOPLE are the whole point. Everything else is just supposed to be designed to provide the PEOPLE with the best possible environment.
God, I do not know who is more depressing…you or Simon.
Maybe they do have an end, but I for one would prefer to see us last as long as possible, learn as much as possible and go as far as possible.
Just as I think governments have forgotten, so it would appear have you and Simon. The PEOPLE are the whole point. Everything else is just supposed to be designed to provide the PEOPLE with the best possible environment.
God, I do not know who is more depressing…you or Simon.
To be technical, the Sun will expand into a red giant and burn off earth’s atmosphere and all life long before it dies and goes cold, assuming said expansion doesn’t swallow the earth entirely, which it might. There’s some debate about what exactly would happen to whatever remained of the earth at that point. Either the sun’s expansion will push it to a further out orbit or it will just eat the earth depending on which astrophysicist you believe. Not sure how any of that is really relevant to the topic. Now, the going cold thing will eventually happen to the whole universe, assuming current cosmological models are correct, but perhaps humans can simply move to some other universe and continue doing stuff there. Who knows it’s useless beyond the point of navel-gazing to look that far into the future.
Thank you for sharing that. I feel better.
Not a wasted day. I learned something and met a fellow traveler. LOL
Thank you for sharing that. I feel better.
Not a wasted day. I learned something and met a fellow traveler. LOL
You are not great with science, are you?
Yes Sun will go out eventually in about 5 billion years.
Since humanity created semblance of society only about 12k years ago, I would not worry about something so for in the future.
I fail to see why.
Why, exactly? Everyone in this discussion will die eventually, as will everyone they love, as will everyone their loved ones love. Why is it essential that some remnant survive? Earth AND its humans may just naturally have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
To be technical, the Sun will expand into a red giant and burn off earth’s atmosphere and all life long before it dies and goes cold, assuming said expansion doesn’t swallow the earth entirely, which it might. There’s some debate about what exactly would happen to whatever remained of the earth at that point. Either the sun’s expansion will push it to a further out orbit or it will just eat the earth depending on which astrophysicist you believe. Not sure how any of that is really relevant to the topic. Now, the going cold thing will eventually happen to the whole universe, assuming current cosmological models are correct, but perhaps humans can simply move to some other universe and continue doing stuff there. Who knows it’s useless beyond the point of navel-gazing to look that far into the future.
You are not great with science, are you?
Yes Sun will go out eventually in about 5 billion years.
Since humanity created semblance of society only about 12k years ago, I would not worry about something so for in the future.
Agreed – perhaps lead by example and jump into the Thames?
I was rather banking on COVID but was to be disappointed!
As Matt M of this forum put it so beautifully the other day :”Bloody Chinese! Even the deadly viruses they manufacture don’t work properly.”
That is a stupid statement.
That particular panic story has been pushed for over a century and has yet to come true.
Besides, the whole point is the survival of the human species, not the planet, not other species, the human species.
Why? Because no matter what humans do, the world WILL end and all species will die off eventually, with us or without us. Either some disease will come along, a super volcano will go off such as the one under Yellowstone, a massive asteroid will hit and create a global firestorm. All things that have happened repeatedly before. If that is not enough, at some point in the future the sun will die out and the planet will grow frozen cold and all life will perish. Might be good to have a few excess billion humans just in case most of us get wiped out by nature first.
Our goal, is to make sure that we survive as a species long enough to actually figure out how to get the heck off of this rock before that happens.
Good! The most important problem this world has is too many people – this is the natural way of sorting that out.