MovieChat Forums > Children of Men (2007) Discussion > Anyone else wish mankind would go infert...

Anyone else wish mankind would go infertile?


Just curious.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

reply

No. Although I sometimes wonder what it might be like to be one of the last elderly people left. The Brian Aldiss novel Greybeard gives an idea of what to expect. There was another novel by D.F. Jones called Implosion, where most of Britain's women became infertile in the 1970s. The opening page reads:

Once there had been four tracks, but three had been ripped up. The remaining one was rust-red.

Tufts of grass pushed blindly up in the one-time trim tarmac of the platforms, and somewhere a door banged irregularly in the fitful summer breeze. The erstwhile modern angularity of the station buildings was marred by a large leaning sign, blotched and peeling:

ALIGHT HERE FOR GATWICK AIRPORT

The footbridge, known to thousands of apprehensive yet eager holidaymakers, bore a more recent sign, daubed crudely in red. Dribbles of paint had run down from some of the letters:

DANGEROUS - DO NOT USE

Beyond the bridge, the terminal buildings, larger than life in their echoing emptiness, accepted the slow encroachment of nature. Brambles extended long green feelers through broken windows. And all around the air was heavy with the sound of sheep.

August 1995. There had been no fighting, no bombs, no suicidal clash of nuclear might. The air was clean, fresh, untainted with radioactivity or unnatural microbes; there had been no invasion of unspeakable monsters from outer space or the hidden depths of the sea.

But Gatwick Airport was as dead as Nineveh.
I'm currently reading a book by Michael Shermer called The Moral Arc. Despite all the gloom and doom that regularly gets reported in the news, the world actually IS getting better overall. No need for the cockroaches to inherit it.

reply

Agreed. Another excellent book on this topic is Steven Pinker's _Enlightenment Now_.

reply

Or, where mankind can only reproduce by in-vitro fertilization? That alone, where you can only have kids if you go to a clinic first. Would greatly reduce the population - but not cause mankind to go extinct.

reply

Well THAT would cause social chaos! If only those who could pay for iVF could reproduce, and IVF wasn't available to everyone, there would be literal class warfare. The nicer riots would demand public funding and universal access to IVF, the worse ones would be out to kill anyone who thought they had the right to reproduce while the rioters didn't.

Of course, it would be darkly amusing to see a world where only the wealthy could reproduce. After ONE generation there would be no worker bees and no service workers, the children of the rich would have to mow their own lawns and work in their own sweatshops. They'd probably invent and implement large-scale human cloning, just to avoid doing the real work themselves.

reply

Or robots, which is probably what the world of CHILDREN OF MEN is going to look like fifty or sixty years later, to take care of all the old people.

reply

Haven't seen that movie, because I don't watch depressing movies. My job involves dealing with terrible situations, I don't need to pay for more.

But yeah, imagine if only the rich could reproduce! Humans are social animals, and have an incredibly strong desire for status and superiority that I believe is part of our instinct as social primates, and if only the rich could reproduce what would that desire for superiority do to their society? IMHO they'd start dividing, pushing some people down, until there was a new service class made up of formerly wealthy families. Because people who value class and wealth need someone to not only do the work they don't want to do, but they need someone to feel superior to.

reply

That's plausible.

reply

[deleted]

No. That would actually suck big time.

reply

ME! ME! ME!

It has been my contention for quite a while that the only "salvation" for earth would be for the ENTIRE human species to be EXTERMINATED............And it's gonna come.

"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." BOB DYLAN

reply

We will evolve into something else eventually, we moved over Cro Magnon at some point in the past and some other form of humanity will do the same... eventually

reply

It's been postulated that our population will already decline from 2050 onwards. We're not gonna just keep growing and growing. Most of the births are from third world countries right now.

"You'll be taking a soul train straight to a disco inferno where you never can say goodbye!"

reply

Even if we reduced by a huge factor we're still all screwed, we cant sustain this comsume resources , burn oil , throw shit away after one use lifestyle for long.
mainly because of oil

reply

Untrue. Read Steven Pinker's ENLIGHTENMENT NOW. Hunger, extreme poverty, etc. are all on global decline, while literacy and other "good things" are increasing.

reply

Does Mr Pinker address any issues with population , resources and energy future in this book,

or is it a kind of Futurists sci fi dream of how cool stuff can get re hunger poverty and stuff based on current levels of increasing tech and increasing energy usage?

Its all about the energy imho , if we cracked the cold fusion thing or in some other way got near infinite energy availability (again) then yes you could solve pretty much all the other problems (human nature for war etc not withstanding)

All of the moderns worlds success (and population explosion) in the last 200 years are pretty much down to the huge stash of free energy found under the deserts of the middle east .

and those days are ending.

reply

No, it's not a pie-in-the-sky "things could get better if we discover X, Y, and Z". It's a huge book, and there's all kinds of stuff including sort of philosophical elements; but in terms of the hard data I'm talking about, representing the positive change that has ALREADY happened, you can see a lot at the site World In Data.

"In 2019, an estimated 761 million people did not have electricity. Two decades ago more than 1.6 billion people were in this position."
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/number-without-electricity

"Electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics cost $359 per MWh in 2009. Within just one decade the price declined by 89% and the relative price flipped: the electricity price that you need to charge to break even with the new average coal plant is now much higher than what you can offer your customers when you build a wind or solar plant."
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

As for the "population explosion":

"The global average fertility rate is around 2.3 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved. And over the course of the modernization of societies the number of children per woman decreases very substantially."
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#the-global-fertility-rate-has-halved-in-the-last-50-years

Meanwhile, global levels of hunger and extreme poverty have dropped by a staggering scale no one could have predicted 25-30 years ago.

"There are more than a billion fewer people living below the International Poverty Line of $2.15 per day today than in 1990. On average, the number declined by 47 million every year, or 130,000 people each day."
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/poverty?insight=global-extreme-poverty-declined-substantially-over-the-last-generation#key-insights-on-poverty

In 1990, 37.81% of the world fell underneath that International Poverty Line; by 2019 it was only 8.44%. This is a MASSIVE improvement.

reply

Your misconceptions are unfortunately very common in the industrialized world. I know it's hard to upend a fundamental aspect of your worldview, but you should really try, because the facts are totally against you. And those actually living in the developing world understand this much better:

https://ourworldindata.org/wrong-about-the-world
--------
In these poorer countries more people understand how global poverty has changed. People in richer countries on the other hand – in which the majority of the population escaped extreme poverty some generations ago – have a very wrong perception about what is happening to global poverty.

We are not just wrong about global poverty. In the same survey people were asked: “In the last 20 years, has the child mortality rate in developing regions increased, decreased or stayed about the same?”

Here again the data is very clear. The child mortality rate in both the less- and least-developed countries has halved in the last 20 years.[...]

This has to be one of humanity’s greatest achievements.

And just as with knowledge about extreme poverty, the share of uninformed people is much higher in the rich countries of the world. So is our work at Our World in Data needed? This survey shows that few Senegalese or Kenyans will learn something new; but if you have some friends in the US or Japan you will probably help them if you share our work.

reply

Kinda, if there was a cure for it that people could only be given after undergoing tests and examinations to determine if they would be competent parents or not. There are to many irresponsible and violent people out there that have no idea of how to properly raise a child.

reply

If only they did that now! If only anyone could be trusted to be the testers, and come up with a test that didn't reflect anyone's prejudices!

No, if fertility were limited in a way that allowed some agency to decide who could reproduce and who couldn't, it would 1) cause massive social chaos (see above), and 2) the decision-making process would inevitably become corrupted in favor of whoever was in power. If the government were allowed to decide who could reproduce and who couldn't, IVF with no copay would be part of the standard civil service benefits package, but of course the governmental system would be fairer than anything the free market could produce. Trust the free market with this one, and reproduction capability would have a 1:1 correlation with personal wealth, with maybe a lottery for the ordinary citizens to keep them from rioting too much.

Yeah, I'm a bit cynical.

reply

Why shouldn't only the wealthy procreate? They're the ones proving that they can provide for their children. I would not be opposed to that.

reply

I dunno , a simple test, a few simple rules , just to prevent absolute mongs from reproducing...
Like a car driving test.
Simple things like "have you ever held a job down for more than a year?"


I was reading the other day about a 'lady' who had just had her 10th baby.
The previous 9 all taken into care immediatley becasue there was no way she could provide shit for them.

reply

I wouldn't wish infertility on one person let alone mankind

reply

[deleted]