What if no babies for 10 years.?

Question

The world makes a law. no babies anywhere in the world are allowed to be born for the next ten years. everybody obeys by the law. after ten years condom sales go down and babies are in prosess again. what woudl the world be like after ten years. like what would the consequences be. what would the world be like ?

Some people are really not very smart. do they even read the question. yeah this is my next question. something about these retarted people.

try to think of some possitve outcomes aswel. ofcourse the negative is much more. i guess.

also think about the gap of ten years as it moves on on.. like when the babies would have been 20 when they would have been 30. basicly there will be a constant gap somewhere in the age.. that will start to fade and get smaller after about 70 years. am I correct.. or is it actually much bigger than that.

the final impact would probably be almost no deaths for 10 years. and almost nobody in old age home for ten years.

I now see how huge this question is..

Answer 1

Some people would have a serious problem with their pensions.
Streets would be quiter for a while (when the said missing babies would be teenagers).
A lot of family break ups/divorces ...etc.
Many companies like mothercare/baby milk ...etc would simply go bust
Endless consequences

Answer 2

Well first of all...there would be a vast generation gap because by the time those babies grew up they would be about sixteen before they could have children....so ten years of abstention plus another 16 years would be 26. The boys /girls would have to marry men /women 26 years older than themselves or of the same age or else they would marry minors. the minors would have tiny babies and there would be more infant mortalities because of the babies being very weak and ill. Once that generation gets older and are able to and the condom sales have gone down then some people would resort to "safe sex". If there aren't enough females the men would resort to homosexuality and the women to lesbianism if there aren't enough men. Probably more paedophiles also if there weren't enough sex partners. People would intermarry with other races to find a partner so everyone will be a light brown colour instead of being black, yellow brown khakhi. white, pastey. olive, suntanned or whatever. The children of the generation that waits until it is older...in their 20s. etc. might have stronger children because they haven't procreated and therefore their sperm or ovaries are better. dont really know...its all guesswork but just imagine what would there be to live for if you couldn't have a child when you really desparately wanted one. What effect it would it have on the minds of those would be parents??
Deaths....there will no deaths obviously in that age gap but the people that exist will still be dying. If there is a plague of some sort there might be even more deaths as there would not be younger people to look after the sick once they the older generation enters old age.
Employment.....Again there would be an economic gap.. People of 16 to about 35 have far more engergy and would work harder s if there aren't any the economics of the countries would drop drastically. Less people less work. One wouldn't provide so much food or commodities and there wouldn,t be the demand for them.
Food....without young strong people to work machinery and farms the production of food would drop and fields would grow wild...factories would empty out.
The consequences are great....less transportation. more space everywhere and life would not be that happy....at least I dont think it would.
It was a good question and needs a lot of time to think it out thoroughly. What on earth made you think of this lol?

Answer 3

Wow. Not that I think that could actually happen, unless they say we'll kill you if you do have kids, but I would think that there would be an evolutionary bottleneck effect. I am not sure that there would be a direct effect on humans in general, but it might effect some countries, like the poorer ones that rely on new borns, because the life expectancy is so low. Otherwise, there would be a ten year generation gap. Good question!

I DO have a question, though. How would having no births for ten years effect death? People would still die of diseases and old age. There would be just as many deaths as there are now, but no births to replace the dying.

I did think a bit more about somethings, though. The good would be that places that have far too many people the population would decrease quite a bit. Hopefully in that time people would learn that having ten babies per household isn't a blessing if there is no money and poverty is is a daily worry. Another good thing, maybe, because it IS only ten years, would be a decrease in world hunger. I think that the bad out ways the good, though. Some people made some really valid points. The economy would be shot.

Think of the effect of this if it were for 30 years or, worse, 50 years!

Answer 4

Always providing you can get the law to stick and I am all for it by the way, it would have a huge impact on the worlds economy.
Millions are spent 'bringing up baby' it would have a huge effect on the labour market as there would be no requirement for all the 'baby' goods currently being manufactured and bought, thinking of food, clothes, nappies etc. There would also be a shortfall in the need for teachers etc.
On the plus side as we produce huge amounts of CO2 per head of population, this would reduce, we would also be more able to provide more effective care for those alive at the time of 'no babies' in the way of better health care, thinking of all the time that health workers spend with children and the world as a whole would be better able to feed itself with fewer 'new mouths'.
The ten years without adding to the population would not really affect future job markets as we are as a whole living longer so there will always be someone to fill the vacancies.
As we humans are an adaptable race I think that the pluses would outway the negatives, the thing that would worry me would be the huge surge after the ban was lifted, I think that would have a bigger impact than the ban itself, the huge surge of women leaving the workplace and the surge of healthcare requirement would be devastating not even thinking about the sudden requirement for all the extra food.
I think that your basic idea is sound but ten years is too long 3 or 4 would be enough to cut the numbers on this over populated planet and not have the same dramatic surges of the worlds economy.

Answer 5

Theirs so many factors to consider, people may not want children until they are older, then this laws brought in, the choice is taken away, ten years later when people do start to have children they are older, and may be of an age where its detrimental to a baby.

Statistically numbers should drop, ten years is a long time with no reproduction, when you think of how many babies are born daily worldwide.

In those ten years chances are things may have evolved, people may want to make up for lost time and start more generations of children, but in those ten years who's to say they havent missed out on a generation or two, does that make any sense?

Answer 6

Hmm, something very similar to a consequences of a war, but much more severe. Believe it or not, Russia had a huge demographic decline when America had a baby boom. For one simple reason - not enough men! So if you wipe out a generation, you get things like declined numbers in college admissions, for example. All the demographical dips and drops have serious ramifications on economy. If you take out 10 years for everyone, you'll probably set up some wave patterns in economy, if not destroy it completely.

P.S. If people don't read the category but read your question and mostly their own mind, they'll start talking about marriage and stuff. LOL

Answer 7

Well first off Mother Care would close, all the products made for babies would stop and millions would be out of work.
Tesco / Asda and many more shops would loss 20% of their sales putting even more people on the dole. Not a good Idea Make it law no more than 2 children per family, and stop the ones who breed just so they can get a bigger house and more benefits

Answer 8

Yeah, everything would change. There would be an increase in condom and other forms of birth control. Baby toy and clothing makers would go out of business for this period of time. There would be no need for day care for infants, no kindergarten-3nd or so grade teachers. So a lot of jobs would be lost, economy would go down do to lack of jobs. However, the world would be able to catch up on over population. Would give a chance to equal out the birth to death ratio. Probably would be a whole lot of un happy couples, who are unable to start their family. I think once people could start having babies again, they might be hesitant, since it had been so long since there had been babies. There would be a wide array of jobs again, ob-gyns, clothing makers, toy makers, teachers, day care, baby items. It would be a sudden boom in the economy. could be good or could cause devastation. Hmmm, good question, Makes a person think.

Answer 9

There would grow up a generation hidden away because of their parent's inability to comply with the law - a bit like John Wyndham's The Chrysalids

Answer 10

not much difference cause after 10 yrs they could have babies. toys on the other hand might go down. restanruants menus will change there condom no change cause of std r vd and the goverment might tell them 2 make more so there aren't any babies so condoms might even go up. school will less'n. NOW 25 R 30 YRS THAT'S the question.