According to a recent study, the mean sperm count of the global male population declined by 51.6% between 1973 and 2018.
You only need a single sperm to cause fertilization. That’s not the reason for a sinking birth rate.
The key part about this is that this is going to shrink the supply of labour faster then the demand. All the old factories and so forth will still be around. So this strengthens the position of workers against the capital. We also will keep a lot of the old infrastructure. In Western Europe, where we have long term financial data going back centuries, there have been two periods of the wealth gap closing. One was after the Black Death and the other after WW2. In both cases there was a lot of death shrinking the labour force.
The other key part is that this is already happening. There was a peak in births in 1990 with 143.5million globally. After that it fell for a bit to then hit another peak in 2012 with 146.1million. Current UN projects are that that will be the peak in the foreseeable future.
This is why the leadership class is talking about birth rates so much. They are worried about their power.
So could this actually benefit the workers? Although which ones. Wouldn’t be surprised if they manage to fuck over 1 more generation first…
FWIW,
wp:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction in order to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources caused by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation.
…
VHEMT rejects government-mandated human population control programs in favor of voluntary population reduction,[2] supporting only the use of birth control and willpower to prevent pregnancies.[3] Knight states that coercive tactics are unlikely to permanently lower the human population, citing the fact that humanity has survived catastrophic wars, famines, and viruses.[10]
No thanks.
Try having a society that actually supports families with things like a living wage, time off, health care.
While all three are good policies to have, they aren’t enough to make people want to have babies as demonstrated by birth rates in most countries that have them. It turns out that raising a human properly is a lot of work and a lot of responsibility, not to say that it requires women to go through pregnancy and childbirth, both exhausting and potentially traumatic events. If we are to raise birth rates, we need to offer way more than just this bare minimum.
Changing our societal structure to encourage communal child raising so that responsibility doesn’t fall fully on young inexperienced parents would be one potential step. Developing tools to help women go through pregnancy and childbirth more easily would be another.
All three are offered in every developed nation, where do you live?
The Bad Place.
Donaldland
In a crappy place…
