Latest news with #MichaelLittle
Metro
2 days ago
- Health
- Metro
How long humanity would take to go extinct if we stopped having children
'Overpopulation' is a scary word, bringing to mind a dystopian Earth where people live in grimy cities and fight over what little food is left. But the reverse of this is just as terrifying – depopulation – if humans suddenly began having fewer and fewer babies. And if that were to happen, it wouldn't take long for humanity to go completely extinct. While some people live beyond the age of 100, the human race would only be around for a few decades at a push, Professor Michael Little, an anthropologist at Birmingham University, Writing in The Conversation, Professor Little said this is because society needs young people to care for elders and drive economic growth. He wrote: 'Eventually, civilisation would crumble. It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive.' After the final human is born, a countdown would begin as everyone simply grows older until everyone dies from old age. Professor Little said: 'Eventually, there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. 'Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. 'Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed.' There are many reasons why people could stop having children, Professor Little said, such as a disease making people infertile or a nuclear war. While a few viruses, like HIV, the Zika virus and a few STIs such as HPV, can lead to infertility, they very rarely do so or only have very mild effects. So a virus wiping out the world's ability to have children is, for now, just science fiction, though male fertility rates are a worry among scientists. But a rapidly ageing population and declining birth rate are very much real. Earth is home to 8,200,000,000 human beings, with the global population increasing since the end of the Black Death around 1350. And the number of humans will keep rising until about 2080, when the UN expects the size of humanity to peak at 10.3billion, before it drops slightly. One reason for this inevitable slowdown is that people are already having fewer babies in some parts of the world, such as Japan and South Korea. These countries are now facing a new issue, an ageing population, as they're under the 2.1 children per woman rate with their population stable. In China, for example, the fertility rate is just 1.18. This is also happening in the UK, where the fertility rate fell to just 1.44 children per woman last year, down from 2.47 in 1946. Ageing population is a problem, Professor Little said, because young people are the 'engines of society' who keep new ideas flowing and work jobs that elderly people would struggle to do. He likened it to how humans, otherwise called Homo sapiens, became the dominant species on Earth over the Neanderthal. Neanderthals were humans like us, but were a distinct species that were around for about 350,000 years. Dr Little said: 'Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. 'This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals.' There would be, however, some perks to humanity going extinct, as some campaign groups have long dreamt of. Amid climate change, caused by humans pumping out planet-warming gases, wildlife populations have fallen by 70%. Professor Little said: 'If humans were to go extinct, it could open up opportunities for other animals to flourish on Earth. 'On the other hand, it would be sad for humans to go away because we would lose all of the great achievements people have made, including in the arts and science.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Science
- Daily Mail
Scientist reveals exactly how long it would take for humans to go EXTINCT if we stopped having babies
It is a terrifying prospect right out of a dystopian science fiction movie. But a scientist has now revealed exactly how long it would take for humanity to go extinct if we stopped having babies. Since very few people live beyond a century, you might think that humanity would take around 100 years to vanish. However, according to Professor Michael Little, an anthropologist at Birmingham University, we would probably disappear even faster. That's because there would eventually not be enough young people of working age to keep civilisation functioning. Writing in The Conversation, Professor Little explained: 'As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. 'It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. 'Eventually, civilization would crumble.' If all of humanity suddenly lost the ability to have children, the world would not end overnight. Instead, the world's population would gradually shrink as the older generations die and fail to be replaced by the next. If there were enough food and supplies to go around, the world's population would simply get older until everyone currently on Earth died of old age. The countries that would show the most rapid declines would be those with already ageing populations such as Japan and South Korea. Meanwhile, countries with younger populations such as Niger, where the median age is just 14.5, would remain well-populated for longer. However, much like in the science fiction classic Children of Men, Earth's extinction would not follow such a smooth trajectory into oblivion. Professor Little says: 'Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. 'Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. 'Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed.' This societal collapse would likely lead to Earth's depopulation well before most people live out their natural lifespans. Luckily, Professor Little says that an abrupt halt in births is 'highly unlikely unless there is a global catastrophe'. One possible scenario that could lead to such a disaster is the spread of a highly contagious disease which causes widespread infertility. Studies suggest there are only a small number of viruses which have an impact on male fertility, including deadly strains such as Zika virus and HIV. But none of these cause infertility in 100 per cent of cases and many only have mild impacts on fertility-related issues such as reduced sperm count. This means that a virus which wipes out the world's ability to reproduce thankfully remains a matter for science fiction. However, the possibility of facing a rapidly ageing population due to a declining birth rate is a far more pressing concern. The world's population has boomed in the last 100 years, expanding from just 2.1 billion in 1930 to 8.09 billion today. Current estimates suggest that humanity will continue to expand until the mid-2080s, reaching a peak of 10 billion. But as humanity reaches its peak size, the number of babies being born each year is already beginning to fall. In some cases, fertility rates have now fallen below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain a stable population. Combined with growing life expectancy, this means the average age of many countries has begun to increase. Billionaire Elon Musk - who has 14 children with four women - has for years warned about population collapse caused by a 'baby bust' in America and the West. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics found that the fertility rate fell to just 1.44 children per woman in 2024 down from the 'Baby Boom' of 2.47 children per woman in 1946. This is leading to a rapid increase in the average age, reaching 40.7 years in 2022 from 39.6 years in 2011. England and Wales only recorded 591,072 live births in 2023, the lowest number since 1977. This has brought the UK's fertility rate below the 'replacement rate' - the number of babies per woman needed to maintain a stable population Other countries are facing an even greater birth rate crisis, sparking serious concerns for economic growth. China, which artificially dropped its birth rate through the 'one child policy', has a fertility rate of just 1.18 children per women. This has led many to worry about how a dwindling working-age population will be able to care for a growing number of elderly people. While falling birth rates alone aren't likely to destroy humanity, Professor Little cautions that humans should be wary. Professor Little says: 'Our species, Homo Sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct.' He points to the example of the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens, which lasted over 350,000 years before gradually declining and becoming extinct. Professor Little added: 'Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. 'This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals.' So what is behind the West's baby bust? Women worldwide, on average, are having fewer children now than previous generations. The trend, down to increased access to education and contraception, more women taking up jobs and changing attitudes towards having children, is expected to see dozens of countries' population shrink by 2100. Dr Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, told MailOnline that people are choosing to have smaller families and the change 'is permanent'. 'So it's wise to focus on working within this new reality rather than trying to change it,' she said. Sex education and contraception A rise in education and access to contraception is one reason behind the drop off in the global fertility rate. Education around pregnancy and contraception has increased, with sex education classes beginning in the US in the 1970s and becoming compulsory in the UK in the 1990s. 'There is an old adage that 'education is the best contraception' and I think that is relevant' for explaining the decline in birth rates, said Professor Allan Pacey, an andrologist at the University of Sheffield and former chair of the British Fertility Society. Elina Pradhan, a senior health specialist at the World Bank, suggests that more educated women choose to have fewer children due to concerns about earning less when taking time off before and after giving birth. In the UK, three in 10 mothers and one in 20 fathers report having to cut back on their working hours due to childcare, according to ONS data. They may also have more exposure to different ideas on family sizes through school and connections they make during their education, encouraging them to think more critically about the number of children they want, she said. And more educated women may know more about prenatal care and child health and may have more access to healthcare, Ms Pradhan added. Professor Jonathan Portes, an economist at King's College London, said that women's greater control over their own fertility means 'households, and women in particular, both want fewer children and are able to do so'. More women entering the workplace More women are in the workplace now than they were 50 years ago — 72 vs 52 per cent — which has contributed to the global fertility rate halving over the same time period. Professor Portes also noted that the drop-off in the birth rate may also be down to the structure of labour and housing markets, expensive childcare and gender roles making it difficult for many women to combine career aspirations with having a family. The UK Government has 'implemented the most anti-family policies of any Government in living memory' by cutting services that support families, along with benefit cuts that 'deliberately punish low-income families with children', he added. As more women have entered the workplace, the age they are starting a family has been pushed back. Data from the ONS shows that the most common age for a women who were born in 1949 to give birth was 22. But women born in 1975, were most likely to have children when they were 31-years-old. In another sign that late motherhood is on the rise, half of women born in 1990, the most recent cohort to reach 30-years-old, remained childless at 30 — the highest rate recorded. Women repeatedly point to work-related reasons for putting off having children, with surveys finding that most women want to make their way further up the career ladder before conceiving. However, the move could be leading to women having fewer children than they planned. In the 1990s, just 6,700 cycles of IVF — a technique to help people with fertility problems to have a baby — took place in the UK annually. But this skyrocketed to more than 69,000 by 2019, suggesting more women are struggling to conceive naturally. Declining sperm counts Reproductive experts have also raised the alarm that biological factors, such as falling sperm counts and changes to sexual development, could 'threaten human survival'. Dr Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, authored a ground-breaking 2017 study that revealed that global sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades. She warned that 'everywhere chemicals', such as phthalates found in toiletries, food packaging and children's toys, are to blame. The chemicals cause hormonal imbalance which can trigger 'reproductive havoc', she said. Factors including smoking tobacco and marijuana and rising obesity rates may also play a role, Dr Swan said. Studies have also pointed to air pollution for dropping fertility rates, suggesting it triggers inflammation which can damage egg and sperm production. However, Professor Pacey, a sperm quality and fertility expert, said: 'I really don't think that any changes in sperm quality are responsible for the decline in birth rates. 'In fact, I do not believe the current evidence that sperm quality has declined.' He said: 'I think a much bigger issue for falling birth rates is the fact that: (a) people are choosing to have fewer children; and (b) they are waiting until they are older to have them.' Fears about bringing children into the world Choosing not to have children is cited by some scientists as the best thing a person can do for the planet, compared to cutting energy use, travel and making food choices based on their carbon footprint. Scientists at Oregon State University calculated that the each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the 'carbon legacy' of a woman. Each metric ton is equivalent to driving around the world's circumference. Experts say the data is discouraging the climate conscious from having babies, while others are opting-out of children due to fears around the world they will grow up in. Dr Britt Wray, a human and planetary health fellow at Stanford University, said the drop-off in fertility rates was due to a 'fear of a degraded future due to climate change'. She was one of the authors behind a Lancet study of 10,000 volunteers, which revealed four in ten young people fear bringing children into the world because of climate concerns.
Forbes
30-04-2025
- Health
- Forbes
How Preschool Can Boost Your Child's Mental Health
Preschool children are playing with clay in classroom. Once considered a luxury of the upper class alone, parents everywhere are now signing their children up to attend preschool. In the United States, pre-kindergarten attendance rates of 3-to-4-year-olds are about 47%, according to data from the U.S. Institute of Education Sciences; and about 84% of 5-year-olds are enrolled annually. While publicly-funded preschool programs vary from state to state and the quality of education can certainly be different in one school over another, there are many advantages and opportunities that come from a child attending a preschool or pre-kindergarten program. "Because preschool is so much more than academics, we see benefits across a wide range of outcomes," says Dr. Michael Little, an author of preschool research and an associate professor of educational evaluation at North Carolina State University. "While high-quality preschool education definitely benefits early academic skills, attending has also been linked to improvements in executive function skills, social skills, and building the foundation for later school and life success for all kids." Because preschool education programs often aren't state funded the way public K-12 grades are, parents have to decide whether to enroll their children the year or two before kindergarten begins. Doing so often reflects "a mix of both practical needs and a desire to support their child's growth," says Kristel Walker, founder and executive director of Inquisitive Minds—a Utah-based Montessori, Reggio, and Waldorf preschool with multiple campuses. Practical reasons include parents needing reliable childcare while they are away at work, desires to better prepare kids academically and emotionally for elementary education, and "some families simply notice that their child is seeking more connection and experiences," says Walker. No matter the reasons a parent decides to sign their child up, preschool provides numerous proven benefits. These include greater levels of self-confidence, better emotional regulation, improved structure and predictability (imperative for healthy child development), and meta-analysis also shows that parents whose kids attend preschool are more likely to be involved in their children's education going forward. Studies also show significant improvement in social skills development of the children who attend preschool. "Social skills are especially crucial to develop at a young age, and preschool provides great opportunities for children to interact with others in a group setting and with the gentle guidance of a supervising teacher," says Chelsea Giannone, founder and co-director of Storybook Preschool in Lake Oswego, Oregon. "It also provides friendship opportunities they can take with them into first grade and throughout their life." Boosted cognitive development and function is another significant factor with one study showing children who attended preschool testing 9% higher than their classmates in later elementary years. Other research shows that kids who attended preschool are also much more likely to graduate from high school and attend college. Dr. Little points to research he authored that shows that this leg up continues later in life as well as preschool-taught children demonstrate better executive function skills than their peers who didn't attend school before kindergarten. "Preschool stimulates critical thinking, memory, attention, and language skills," echoes Dr. Ari Yares, a Maryland-based practicing psychologist who has worked as a teacher, principal, and school psychologist. Another factor is how preschool has been shown to help children better cope with separation anxiety from mom or dad. It does this, in part, by providing opportunities for children to develop trust with other adults and through kids being able to see their peers also saying goodbye to a parent or guardian at drop off. "Our teachers are very good at helping students cope with these big feelings at drop off—repeating mantras, giving them specific tasks when they first arrive, or praising something they know the child is proud of," says Giannone. 'This engagement not only distracts them during a difficult moment but reinforces that they can do hard things,' she adds, "and before they know it, they are actually looking forward to coming back." Tim Carter, an educator and the president of Discovery Tree Academy has seen such growth firsthand. "I think back on one little girl we had who for weeks was really shy and stuck to her mom at drop-off," he explains. "But by the end of the year, she was the class helper and loved to welcome the other kids and parents each day." Preschool also provides a love of learning that can last. "The benefits of preschool really stem from creating a solid foundation and inspiring a love of learning," says Walker. 'When early learning is rooted in connection, curiosity, and respect, kids develop a positive identity around school and they see learning as something exciting and meaningful to experience.' Despite such advantages, preschool isn't for everyone. Some children benefit from that extra year at home with their parents or siblings. Other kids have disabilities or learning disorders that can be better helped in specialized settings. And some children are already getting plenty of social and academic opportunities in their home life. Costs can also be prohibitive. While many cities have state-funded preschools and there are government assistance programs parents can apply for that can help with the cost of childcare like preschool, the majority of parents still pay for preschool out of pocket. Data shows the average price of childcare, including preschool, is north of $11,500 per family—though many preschool programs cost much less than that. "If your child isn't ready for preschool or if your family circumstances make it challenging, it's perfectly acceptable to delay enrollment or choose not to send your child at all," says Dr. Yares. In such cases, "focus on providing a stimulating and nurturing environment at home that supports their development in other ways." Choosing the best preschool for your child usually starts with talking to other parents and checking online reviews, but most parents best learn what they need to know from touring the preschool they are interested in. "Pay attention to the feeling you get during a tour," suggests Carter. "Does the environment seem safe, warm, and friendly? Are the teachers engaging with the kids? Is it a place you feel good about leaving your child?" Harvard researchers also encourage parents to learn and monitor how physically active children in the preschool are, how teachers discipline a rowdy classroom, and whether adults are addressing the kids in nurturing and encouraging ways. "Also note that programs with low teacher-child ratios allow for warm and responsive interactions between children and teachers," adds Dr. Little; and a high-quality preschool "should also prioritize a holistic range or developmental goals, not just early academics." It's also worth considering family principles and goals. "It's important to identify the values your family holds dear and to find a school that aligns with them," offers Giannone. "I often remind parents that the 'best' preschool isn't the one with the fanciest materials or longest waitlist," adds Walker. "It's the one where your child feels seen, safe, and excited to come each day."
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Waverly expands with acquisition of GGM Wealth Advisor
RIA aggregator Waverly Advisors has purchased Baltimore, Maryland-based GGM Wealth Advisor. Financial specifics of the deal were not divulged. This partnership extends Waverly's reach into Maryland and Virginia, marking the company's 22nd transaction since December 2021. The acquisition brings GGM's over $400m in assets under management (AUM) into Waverly's portfolio, boosting the latter's AUM to approximately $17.4bn. In addition, the full team at GGM has moved to Waverly. GGM president and managing director president Jeff Johnson said: 'Partnering with Waverly provides us with a more robust infrastructure and enhanced resources, allowing us to better serve our clients.' GGM Wealth Advisors was set up in 1996 by Jeff Johnson and Michael Little and has a significant presence in the Baltimore market. The latest deal continues the growth trajectory of Waverly Advisors, which has been expanding rapidly following an equity investment from Wealth Partners Capital Group and HGGC's Aspire Holdings platform. Waverly president and CEO Justin Russell said: 'GGM has built a successful firm by providing a superior client experience while establishing long-term relationships. 'We appreciate GGM's transparent, advisor-guided approach to comprehensive wealth management which prioritises clients' best interests.' Waverly, which was established in 1999 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, now has 37 offices across the US and over 290 employees. It caters to a diverse clientele, including high-net-worth individuals, corporate retirement plans, trusts, endowments, and institutions. In December 2024, Waverly Advisors acquired Planning Capital Management, an investment advisory firm serving high-net-worth individuals, institutions, and non-profits. "Waverly expands with acquisition of GGM Wealth Advisor" was originally created and published by Private Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
